Cadogan v Haringey: High Court rules on appeal bundle in long-running Ebonycare fees dispute

Mr Justice Cavanagh has issued a written judgement following a half-day hearing convened primarily to resolve disagreements over the contents of an Appeal Bundle, in litigation between Kevin Cadogan, trading as Ebonycare, and the London Borough of Haringey that has now run for eight years.

The judgement, handed down on 29 July 2026, arises from a claim originally issued in 2018 for £101,598.72 in respect of unpaid invoices for child placement services provided by Ebonycare before its care homes were closed by Ofsted in 2016. The dispute has since expanded to include Ebonycare Limited and a partnership trading as Ebonycare as additional claimants, reflecting uncertainty over which entity had actually contracted with the council at different points.

Following a six-day trial, HHJ Monty KC ruled in August 2023 that Mr Cadogan had never contracted with the defendant in a personal capacity, dismissing his claim entirely. The partnership's claims relating to invoices before March 2013 were found to be statute-barred, as were the limited company's claims predating July 2016. Only the partnership's claims concerning 32 invoices issued after 8 June 2014 survive, with the second stage of the trial yet to be listed.

The claimants now seek permission to appeal against HHJ Monty KC's judgement, together with an extension of time to challenge three earlier procedural orders. The grounds include allegations of bias, non-disclosure by the council, and a contention that a document signed by Mr Cadogan's mother demonstrates the original 2010 contract was executed as a deed rather than a simple contract, which would extend the applicable limitation period.

A further complication emerged shortly before the hearing when counsel for the council disclosed that the second claimant, wound up in November 2023 on HMRC's petition, may have had its interest in the proceedings assigned to the defendant by its liquidator in exchange for £5,000. Mr Cadogan said this was the first he had heard of any such assignment. Both parties agreed the point did not need resolving for the purposes of this hearing.

Mr Justice Cavanagh's principal task was to determine which of roughly eighty disputed documents, out of a bundle running to over 1,600 pages, should be included in the Appeal Bundle for the eventual permission to appeal hearing. Applying the guidance previously given by Freedman J that only documents relevant and necessary to the appeal issues should be admitted, the judge excluded the great majority of the disputed material, permitting only eight categories, including certain witness statements, the draft version of HHJ Monty KC's judgement, and specific email correspondence concerning disclosure and bundle preparation.

The judgement also addressed £50,000 lodged with the Sheriff's Office in 2018 following a default judgement that was subsequently set aside. Mr Cadogan sought payment of the sum to himself; the council argued it should be returned. Mr Justice Cavanagh declined to order either outcome, finding that the basis for the original payment had fallen away but that the council had made no formal application for its return, leaving the matter to be resolved separately, likely in the County Court.

With the Appeal Bundle dispute now settled, the judge indicated that the long-delayed hearing on extension of time and permission to appeal should be listed without further delay.