Next Generation Holdings Limited & Anor v Alec Finch & Ors

Permission to appeal requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason. A judge is not required to apply a separate rule that allegations of fraud or other serious wrongdoing demand more cogent evidence as a matter of law. The assessment remains one of the evidence as a whole. Challenges to findings of fact and causation face a high threshold. On summary assessment, costs should reflect the complexity, value and work reasonably required in the litigation. A reduction should not be made merely because reductions are commonly made.

This was a consequential matters judgment following the trial judgment in Next Generation Holdings Limited and another v Finch and others, [2023] EWHC 2383 (Ch). The court had entered judgment against the Finches for substantial sums arising from a client-money deficit, false accruals and related wrongdoing.

The remaining issues were the Finches’ application for permission to appeal and the summary assessment of Keely Dalfen’s costs of an additional claim. Interest had been agreed, and the Finches accepted liability for Dalfen’s costs, subject to the amount. The central questions were whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success or another compelling reason to be heard, and what costs were reasonable and proportionate.

1. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused. The proposed challenge to the judge’s approach to the evidence had no real prospect of success. The court rejected the suggested rule of law that more serious allegations, including fraud, require more cogent evidence. Re J [2013] UKSC 9 and Re S-B [2009] UKSC 17 supported that conclusion. The evidence was, in any event, cogent.
2. The criticisms of the findings concerning the client-money deficit did not establish an error of law or a conclusion no reasonable judge could have reached. Some points concerned only the precise amount of the deficit, rather than the central finding that a substantial deficit existed. Other challenges involved the weight and reliability of evidence, matters which did not justify appellate intervention.
3. The findings concerning false accruals and the Finches’ knowledge were supported by the evidence. The trading losses also had a sufficient connection with the wrongdoing on the legal approach stated in the trial judgment. There was no other compelling reason for an appeal, and no further extension of time for an appellant’s notice was granted.
4. Costs. Dalfen’s costs of the additional claim were summarily assessed at £65,640 plus VAT, payable within 14 days. The figure was reasonable and proportionate having regard to the complexity, documentation, duration and value of the fraud litigation. The court rejected a reduction merely because reductions are often made.

This was a first-instance consequential matters judgment following the trial judgment in the same proceedings, [2023] EWHC 2383 (Ch), handed down on 27 September 2023.