Master dismisses reallocation and joinder applications in Green v HSBC dispute

Master Dagnall has refused a litigant in person's applications to reallocate proceedings to a High Court Judge or transfer the matter to the Chancery Division in Andrew Green v HSBC UK Bank PLC [2025] EWHC 3030 (KB). The decision reinforces the established procedural framework for case management in the King's Bench Division and clarifies the limits of challenging prior interlocutory decisions through collateral applications.

The claimant, Mr Andrew Green, sought reallocation on multiple grounds, primarily contending that the matter's complexity—involving elements of equity and commercial law—warranted determination by a High Court Judge rather than continued management by a Master. He also challenged Master Dagnall's previous decision that the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 did not impose freestanding statutory duties on HSBC to present an asserted bond, suggesting this ruling was premature and limited in scope.

Master Dagnall comprehensively rejected these submissions. The judgement emphasised that any challenge to the earlier Bills of Exchange Act decision should properly proceed by way of appeal, for which time had expired. The Master noted that Mr Green's attempt to reframe his statutory argument by characterising HSBC as a "collecting bank" rather than a "holder" constituted an impermissible attack on the previous ruling. The judgement clarified that the Bills of Exchange Act does not impose obligations on an entity merely through possession of a bill of exchange; rather, any duty to present depends on ordinary common law and equitable obligations between the parties.

Addressing the complexity argument, Master Dagnall emphasised the King's Bench Division's substantial experience with both commercial matters and questions of equity. The judgement highlighted that the established Civil Procedure Rules framework contemplates Masters handling case management, including strike-out and summary judgment applications, with referral to High Court Judges reserved for matters of particular complexity. The Master found nothing in the present case warranting departure from this standard practice.

The judgement did, however, grant Mr Green a significant procedural concession. Recognising that the matter remained at a relatively early stage, Master Dagnall permitted amendment of the particulars of claim to assert that duties arose alternatively as matters of fiduciary obligation, equity, or bailment law, in addition to the pleaded contractual and common law negligence claims. This modification ensures Mr Green can advance alternative legal bases for his claim arising from the same factual matrix, though the Master carefully circumscribed this permission to prevent further amendments.

The judgement also addressed Mr Green's separate application to join HSBC's Chief Executive Officer, Ian Stuart, as a defendant. This application was refused and declared totally without merit. Master Dagnall found no connection between Mr Stuart and the 2022 decision not to present the bond, noting that claims against corporate officers face the substantial barrier of the corporate veil absent allegations of personal wrongdoing. The assertion that Mr Stuart had "been inactive" failed to establish any actionable duty, and reference to the UK Corporate Governance Code could not create enforceable legal obligations.

The decision provides valuable guidance on the proper route for challenging interlocutory decisions, the appropriate division of case management responsibilities between Masters and High Court Judges, and the principles governing joinder applications against corporate officers. Master Dagnall's approach demonstrates judicial pragmatism in permitting alternative legal theories whilst maintaining procedural rigour against inappropriate applications.

Copyright & permissions