Terna Energy Trading doo vs Revolut Ltd

This case involved a commercial dispute between Terna Energy Trading doo and Revolut Ltd, focusing on an application for reverse summary judgment or alternatively to strike out the claim, and the subsequent permission to appeal.

TLDR:

• Revolut Ltd applied for reverse summary judgment or to strike out Terna Energy Trading's claim.
• The application was dismissed by the court.
• The court addressed consequential matters including costs, permission to appeal, and extending time for filing an appellant's notice.

The claimant, Terna Energy Trading doo, filed a claim against the defendant, Revolut Ltd, in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. The dispute centered around an application by Revolut Ltd for reverse summary judgment or alternatively to strike out the claim.

On 12 June 2024, HHJ Paul Matthews handed down judgment remotely, dismissing Revolut Ltd's application for reverse summary judgment or to strike out the claim. The judgment was circulated to the parties via email, with an invitation to agree on the wording of the order before the hearing. In the absence of such an agreement, written submissions on consequential matters were invited.

The court addressed four consequential matters: costs, permission to appeal, extending time for filing an appellant's notice, and listing a Case Management Conference (CCMC). The parties agreed that Revolut Ltd should pay the costs of the application, amounting to £50,000, within 14 days.

Revolut Ltd sought permission to appeal the decision. The respondent, Terna Energy Trading, opposed this on the merits and argued that it was too late for the court to entertain the application based on CPR rule 52.3(2)(a). The court examined the jurisdictional issue and concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider the application for permission to appeal.

On the merits of the application, the court found that there was a real prospect of success on both grounds of appeal. The grounds involved issues of law regarding enrichment and whether any enrichment was at the respondent's expense. The court granted permission to appeal on both grounds.

Revolut Ltd also sought an extension of time for filing its appellant's notice, citing the need for detailed engagement with the judgment and the unavailability of counsel. The court declined to extend the time for service of the appellant's notice, emphasizing the policy decision in favor of finality.

Lastly, the court addressed the listing of a CCMC. The respondent sought a half-day CCMC, arguing against further delays. The court agreed with the respondent's suggestion of a 28-day period before the CCMC, directing the parties to provide dates to avoid within 7 days of the order.

In conclusion, the court made the agreed costs order, granted permission to appeal on both grounds, refused an extension of time for service of the appellant's notice, and directed the conditional listing of a CCMC not earlier than 28 days after the order.

Legal representatives: Anthony Pavlovich (instructed by Dla Piper Uk LLP) for the Applicant, Daniel Burgess (instructed by Payne Hicks Beach LLP) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1524 (Comm)