Tag Archives: BritNRG

MetalNRG plc (“the Company”) announces that further to the High Court’s written judgements in the Company’s application for summary judgement against BritEnergy Holdings LLP and BritNRG Ltd, the first and third defendants (together the “Defendants”), in its action for recission of certain contracts and restitution, the deadline for the Defendants to make payment to the Company in the sum of £1,122,961.85 (which includes interest awarded and interim costs recovery) was 4.00pm on 26^th October 2022) (the “Payment Deadline”). First Deendant has now made total payments to the Company of £556,270.33 (of which only £250,001 was received by the Payment Deadline and only £16,269.22 has been paid in respect of interest awarded to the Company).

The Defendants have now written to the Company’s solicitors purporting to have paid the balance that they consider due to the Company pending an appeal of part of the judgement (which appeal notice has also now been served); seemingly awarding themselves a unilateral stay of execution despite such a stay being applied for at the hearing and refused by the Court, and a further stay application pending before the Court of Appeal (and only being made after the deadline for payment having passed).

Clearly such action in is direct contravention of the order made by the High Court and the Company has accordingly commenced enforcement proceedings against the Defendants by the issue and service of statutory demands for the balance due.

 The grounds set out in the notice of appeal are, in the opinion of the Company and its advisers, entirely without substance or merit, and the Company will make representations at any hearing to consider granting leave to appeal accordingly.

 Separately, the Company and its directors (who are also separately represented) have filed for the strike out of the petition filed by Mr Rocco under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Petition”) on the grounds that: (i) Mr Rocco has no real prospect of succeeding on the Petition or for obtaining the claimed relief; (ii) in any event, that Mr Rocco has no real prospect of successfully advancing those claims directed against the Company; and (iii) in any event, there is no other compelling reason why that case should be disposed of at trial.

 The grounds stated above also reflect the conclusions of the in the Supplemental Judgment, delivered by Deputy ICC Judge Kyriakides who expressed her own concerns about the purpose of the request for a stay of enforcement in connection with the Petition. In particular, she held that “it would appear that what [Mr Rocco] is seeking to do by relying on his section 994 Petition in this application to stay the Judgment is to confer an indirect and collateral benefit on the [Corporate Defendants] who are not members of the Company and, as already stated, are not parties to the Section 994 Petition.”

 She went on to state, at paragraph 4.2.4 of the Supplemental Judgment, that:

 (a)  “[i]t is difficult to see how it is in the interests of the [Company], and, therefore, in the interests of [Mr Rocco] for there to be a stay of the Judgment”;

 (b)  “[n]o evidence has been adduced […] to show that the [Company’s] interests would be advanced if the rescission of the April Transaction were to be reversed”; and

 (c)  “the only interests that would be served if [she] were to order a stay (which, in any event, could only be a stay on the rescission order and not on any liability to account) would be those of the [Corporate Defendants]”.

 The Company and its advisers remain of the firm view that Mr Rocco’s requests for relief in the Petition are likely to be disposed of in similar fashion by the High Court and that the Petition is an entirely disingenuous legal action, filed by Mr Rocco as part of a wider scheme to advance his own interests in a personal capacity.