Search
The Court of Appeal has set aside a judgment entered against a Singapore business which was involved in a money transfer and conversion arrangement. In Fastmove v FMC [2026] EWCA Civ 763, summary judgment had been entered against a defendant, FMC, on the basis that it had no defence to a claim for breach of contract, whilst the same application against a director of a co-defendant, a Mr Salamat, was adjourned. On restoration of the application against Mr Salamat many months later, the application was dismissed based on new evidenced provided to the Court, leaving a potential for there to be a finding that there had been no breach of contract by FMC. Seeking leave to appeal nine months after judgment had been entered against it, FMC, represented on the appeal by William Buck, successfully argued that the Court below had erred in bifurcating the summary judgment application process, then permitting fresh evidence, thereby creating a risk of inconsistency between the judgment which was entered against FMC on the application for summary judgment and that which might arise on the trial of Fastmove’s remaining claims against Mr Salamat.
The Judgment emphasis the need to ensure that all factual enquiries are completed before summary judgment is entered against a defendant and illustrates the exceptional ability of the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal many months out of time.
William Buck was instructed for FMC, the appellant, by Mr Ramie Farag, partner of Spencer West
The judgment can be read here: Fastmove v FMC.