Ron Hoffman & Anor v Finalto Group Limited & Anor

A court asked to revisit a final judgment on fresh evidence should consider the strength of the case in light of that evidence, its effect on the reasons already given, the overriding objective and the importance of finality. Pre-judgment interest is assessed broadly by reference to the borrowing costs of people with the claimant’s general characteristics, rather than the claimant’s precise circumstances, and may run throughout the period the claimant was kept out of the money. A settlement offer may affect costs without cutting off interest. A withdrawn Part 36 offer may remain relevant to costs even when its automatic consequences do not apply. Mixed success calls for an assessment of who won in substance and may justify apportioning costs. Permission to appeal may be refused where no proposed ground has a realistic prospect of success.

The ruling concerned consequential matters following judgment in the joined proceedings brought by Ron Hoffman & Anor v Finalto Group Limited & Anor and Finalto (IOM) Limited’s claim against Hoffman. The earlier judgment, dated 21 April 2026, resolved employment and management equity claims and a counterclaim: [2026] EWHC 921 (Comm).

After the defendants disclosed a further version of Gopher Investments’ 2024 financial statements, the claimants sought permission to appeal on a new ground or, alternatively, a rehearing. The court also had to settle nominal damages, pre-judgment interest and costs, and decide the claimants’ application for permission to appeal on six other grounds.

1. The late disclosure did not undermine the independent basis for the FGL valuation. The court had preferred Ms Richards’ valuation, based on several evidential sources, and she had not seen the 2024 accounts when preparing it. Both versions of the accounts showed a lower figure and the new version indicated that the directors had taken Ms Richards’ valuation into account. The judge considered further cross-examination unlikely to assist. Ground 4A had no realistic prospect of success. Applying the approach described in Liqwd Inc v L'Oreal Ltd [2018] EWHC 1845 (Pat), the fresh evidence was at most potentially useful on one part of the valuation argument. That was insufficient to justify a rehearing in light of the overriding objective and finality.

2. The defendants did not contest nominal damages of £2 for the management equity claims. The ETS contained binding obligations which had been repudiated, but no loss had been established.

3. For the interest rate, the court used a broad-brush approach, considering borrowing costs for people with the claimant’s general characteristics rather than his precise financial position. Bank of England data showed average rates of about 8% to more than 9% for new loans to individuals, with an average spread of 4.15% above base. Allowing for the likelihood that someone with Hoffman’s salary characteristics would not be at the top of that range, the appropriate rate was base rate plus 4%. Interest ran for the entire pre-judgment period. The settlement offer could affect costs, but did not change the fact that the money should have been paid when Hoffman’s employment ended and that the defendants had retained its value.

4. In deciding who was the successful party, the court applied the substance-and-reality approach in Roache v News Group Newspapers Limited and Others [1998] EMLR 161. The claimants had failed on significant parts of their case, including the management equity claims, but Hoffman recovered employment-related sums and the claimants defeated a counterclaim pleaded at about US$90–100 million. They were the successful party, subject to a substantial reduction for issues on which they failed.

   The defendants’ £3.5 million offer had been withdrawn after trial and did not carry automatic Part 36 consequences. It remained a without-prejudice-save-as-to-costs offer that could be considered under the Civil Procedure Rules r. 44.2(4)(c). Although it was unreasonable to continue litigating after the offer expired on 29 September 2025, the court made no order as to costs from 30 September because the claimants had established binding obligations, repudiation, Hoffman’s entitlement to some payments and the failure of the counterclaim. For the period up to 30 September, the claimants were awarded two-thirds of their costs on the standard basis. The defendants were to pay 60% of that amount on account.

5. Permission to appeal was refused on all six grounds and on new Ground 4A. The court considered that the restructuring counterfactual ground mischaracterised the case advanced at trial and that the evidence did not make a loan transfer likely. It also doubted, as an alternative observation, whether damages could be recovered for a transfer the defendants had no contractual duty to make. The valuation evidence did not establish an appealable error; construction of clause 3.2 was for the court, and the agreement had been considered as a whole. The financial statements were in evidence without objection, reasons had been given for the valuation findings, the discretionary-bonus case had not been pleaded or tried, and the finding that Greenbaum had not become an FGL employee was supported by the contemporary documents and his evidence.

This consequential ruling followed the High Court judgment of 21 April 2026, [2026] EWHC 921 (Comm) . Permission to appeal that judgment was refused in this ruling.