Sunk by the kitchen sink approach – a salutary lesson for Defendants challenging jurisdiction

Durnont Enterprises Ltd v Fazita Investment Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1224 (Ch)

Following a five-day hearing in November 2025, CYK’s client Durnont had successfully resisted the Defendants’ various applications to challenge jurisdiction, strike out the proceedings, for reverse summary judgment, and to set aside permission to bring a derivative claim (the “Jurisdiction Challenges”). The Honourable Mr Justice Rajah found overwhelmingly for the Claimant in what represented a resounding victory for CYK’s client. The corresponding press release can be found here and the judgment can be read here. The consequences of that judgment were determined at a hearing on 15 and 18 May 2026, with CYK’s client again succeeding.

The Defendants had approached the Jurisdiction Challenges by taking every point which could be taken, including by significantly challenging factual evidence and raising, by the Claimant’s calculations, 44 allegations of breach of full and frank disclosure. This resulted in 19 witness statements of fact, 6 expert reports and thousands of pages of evidence for the hearing. Ultimately, many of the points relied upon by the Defendants were quietly dropped at a very late stage before or during the hearing. In a salutary lesson for Defendants adopting the “everything but the kitchen sink approach”, CYK obtained an order that the Defendants pay Durnont their costs on the indemnity basis, the Judge finding that “the kitchen sink approach taken by the defendants is unreasonable conduct to a high degree and is “out of the norm”.” For similar reasons, CYK secured an order for the Defendants to make an interim payment of 65% of Durnont’s estimated costs pending detailed assessment.

In support of their ‘kitchen sink’ approach, the Defendants had also secured a significant amount of security for their estimated costs of the Jurisdiction Challenges. CYK successfully secured the release of approximately half of that sum, on the basis that there had been a change of material circumstances since it was agreed that security would be provided, given that the scope of the Jurisdiction Challenges had narrowed by the time they were heard and Durnont now had a judgment in its favour.

In addition, the Defendants – who had been separately represented by three sets of lawyers –sought to argue that they should only be severally liable for the costs corresponding to their specific Jurisdiction Challenges. This was also rejected by the Court, which held that the Defendants had adopted a united front and had a common interest in the outcome of each other’s Jurisdiction Challenges, including by adopting each other’s evidence and submissions. The Defendants were thus held to be joint and severally liable.

Finally, the Defendants’ kitchen sink approached continued with regards to their proposed grounds of appeal, with around 30 being advanced between the Defendants. The Judge also refused to grant the Defendants permission to appeal.

This represents a further victory for CYK’s client and acts as a yet further warning to Defendants not to turn a jurisdiction challenge into a ‘mini-trial’.

The CYK team comprised Jon Felce, Joseph Martin, and Leonore Carron-Desrosiers, alongside the Counsel team of Andrew Dinsmore and James Lamming of Twenty Essex. Philip Riches KC of Twenty Essex is also part of the team.

Read the judgment here.