Astra Asset Management UK Ltd & anr (defendants/appellants) v Musst Holdings Ltd (claimant/respondent)
Tuesday 17 – Wednesday 18 January 2023
Appeal 1 – By the Appellant’s Notice filed on 11 February 2022, the appellants appeal the order of Mr Justice Freedman of 17 December 2021. In respect of the contract claim Freedman J. ordered production and delivery of various documents, dismissed the counter claim, ordered costs to be paid on account, and gave directions for a consequentials hearing on 21 January 2022. In respect of the defamation claim, Freedman J. dismissed the defamation claim and ordered costs in favour of the Defendant. This appeal relates only to the contract claim.
In the contract claim, the Respondent, Musst Holdings Ltd sued the Appellants, Astra UK and Astra LLP for fees for effecting two introductions and for access to their books and records to assess all fees that are properly due to them or on account. The Appellant’s do not seek to appeal the factual findings but seek to appeal on the limited issues of novation and eligible investment.
Appeal 2 – By appellant’s notice filed on 17 May 2022, the appellants appeal the order of Freedman J dated 18 March 2022, whereby he ordered that the First Defendant shall by 4pm on 25 March 2022, make a payment into the Court on account of sums due to the Claimant and ordered costs against them.
Freedman J’s order was made following a consequentials judgment following the main judgment handed down on 17 December 2021. Two claims were heard together, referred to as the Contract Claim and the Defamation Claim. This appeal refers to the Contract Claim consequentials order. In the Contract Claim Musst Holdings Limited sues the Applicants, Astra Asset Management UK Limited and Astra Asset Management LLP for fees for effecting two introductions, and for access to their books and records to assess all the fees that are properly due to them or an account. It was found in the Judgment, that Musst was entitled to management and performance fees in relation to two investment management contracts. Freedman J found that the relevant Contract did not include a limit on the Claimant’s fee entitlement in relation to investments on these investment management contracts. It is this finding which is the subject of this appeal.