ICG Manager Ltd & Ors v Colliers International Valuation UK LLP [2026] EWHC 1788 (Ch)

[2026] EWHC 1788 (Ch)Case No BL-2024-001106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NLDate 15/07/2026
Before
MR DAVID HALPERN KC
Between
ICG MANAGER LIMITED (FORMERLY INTERMEDIATE CAPITAL MANAGERS LIMITED)ClaimantsICG LONGBOW SENIOR DEBT INVESTMENTS NO.1 LLPClaimantBUPA PENSION SCHEME TRUSTEES LTD ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BUPA PENSION SCHEMEClaimantAPEX GROUP FIDUCIARY SERVICES LIMITED (FORMERLY SANNE FIDUCIARY SERVICES LIMITEDClaimantCOLLIERS INTERNATIONAL VALUATION UK LLP T/A COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL (NO. OC391629)Defendant
Ms Alicia Tew (instructed by Burges Salmon LLP) for ClaimantsMr Diarmuid Laffan (instructed by RPC LLP) for Defendant(Approved Judgment)This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:30 am on 15 July 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................DAVID HALPERN KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION

Mr David Halpern KC :

[1]I must now deal with two matters which are consequential on my judgment on the Claimants’ application to re-amend their Particulars of Claim ([2026] EWHC 1749 (Ch)).[2]The first is further directions giving a timetable for consequential amendments to the Defence and the Reply and for the Defendant (if so advised) to file a further witness statement (or statements) dealing with the matters arising from the amendments (including the number of witness statements). Given that there is due to be a PTR on 23 or 24 July, on reflection I think it is best to leave the directions to be decided at the PTR. However, the Defendant should immediately commence the necessary work, so that time is not lost between now and the PTR.[3]As regards costs, I found in favour of the Claimants that they should be permitted to re-amend in most, but not, of all the respects sought at the hearing. Ms Tew, on behalf of the Claimants, submits that they were the successful parties and should therefore have their costs of the application. Burges Salmon has submitted a costs summary in the sum of £38,601.50.[4]However, the version attached to the application was Version 1. The version which I considered at the hearing was Version 3. As I explained in my judgment, Burges Salmon initially made allegations which appeared to indicate that they were alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Although they later made it clear that this was not their intention, Version 1 remained consistent with such a claim. Mr Laffan, for the Defendant, therefore submits that his client was the successful party.[5]In my judgment the Claimants were the successful party, in that they obtained much (but not all) of what they sought at the hearing. However, they increased their own costs, and caused the Defendant to incur unnecessary costs, by their conduct. I consider it is appropriate to reflect this by awarding the Claimants half of their costs. I summarily assess the Claimants’ costs of the application in the sum of £19,300 (inclusive of VAT).[6]The Defendant is entitled to the costs of and occasioned by the amendments (meaning the amendments as permitted by the court). The costs incurred by the Defendant in dealing with the earlier abortive drafts are reflected in my order limiting the Claimant to half its costs.