It is now 15 years since Manolete signed its first few cases and I am more than a little wistful when I think back to those modest beginnings. It was a slow burn with a tiny team initially.

Today, we still operate fundamentally the same model and a much enlarged team has now delivered total case recoveries of over £152m across 1,064 completed UK individual claims. Some of those claims are for seven figures but a large majority of our claims are very much smaller – we have always maintained a minimum headline claims value of just £20k. We believe that provides very important financial support as well as vital risk protection for the many hundreds of brilliant IPs and their chosen expert legal teams.

Along our journey, we have made a lot of valued friends. Always my favourite Manolete statistic is: every IP who has ever signed up a case with Manolete, has always (without fail) presented more cases to us to consider in the future.

Why? The IPs see the model works, it delivers cash into the estates and very effectively. And in the very rare cases where no recovery is made, Manolete absorbs every single cost hit (including adverse costs because we never use expensive ATE). The IP keeps the initial upfront payment we made to buy the case. And the lawyers always retain all the cash payments for their work along the process.

I am gratified to say 2024 marked an exceptional year with record new case enquiries and new case investments coming in from all areas of the UK; we also recorded our landmark 1,000th completed case.

In the most recent six-month reporting period to September 2024, we received a record number of 437 new case enquiries, a 27% higher volume than the previous comparable six months. That points to a very healthy pipeline of cases as we move forward into 2025. As a consequence, we are looking to add to the in-house legal team and look forward to making some of those announcements soon.

I think it’s fair to say Manolete’s regional network of in-house lawyers is universally respected by their peers in IP firms, solicitors’ firms and barristers’ chambers. It gives me great delight to see them all acting in such close partnership with such a wide array of extremely high calibre fellow professionals, with everyone aiming at delivering fantastic returns for creditors.

We were very proud to see the publication of the Chambers Guide 2024, where for the fourth year running Manolete was named as the only firm in Band One for Insolvency Litigation Funding. In addition, Mena Halton, our MD and Head of the Legal Team has been recognised once again as a Band One lawyer.

We were equally honoured last month to be named a Financial Times Europe Long-Term Growth Champion for 2025. It gives us all immense pride to stand among Europe’s top-performing firms over a 10-year period, showing our commitment to sustainable growth and dedication to those we partner with.

I realise that, strictly speaking, I shouldn’t identify individuals in what is manifestly an inspirational team effort at Manolete. But Mena Halton, our Managing Director, never ceases to amaze me how she co-ordinates our wonderful in-house lawyers’ talents so adeptly. And also, a special mention to Tracy Halson who has run our back office team with a quiet and determined dedication. Both Mena and Tracy have worked for Manolete for over ten of our fifteen years and are the very cornerstones of the Company. It has been one of the highest pleasures of my career to work alongside two such outstanding individuals.

We have all earnt our festive celebrations but once they are over, I strongly believe we will all immediately be in the midst of a busy and exciting year.

So, we wish all our friends in the turnaround, restructuring and insolvency sector a very safe and happy Christmas. Rest well - 2025 looks like it’s going to be a particularly busy one for us all!

Steven Cooklin
Chief Executive

Feature
The Dog that Didn't Bark by Stephen Baister

The dog that didn’t bark features in the Sherlock Holmes story 'The Adventure of Silver Blaze'. It is about the disappearance of a racehorse shortly before an important race meeting and the possible murder of its trainer.

Crucial to Holmes’s solution of the mystery was the “curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” the curiosity being that it did not bark during the theft of the horse. Holmes deduced the fact that the dog did not bark had to mean the perpetrator was known to the dog, thereby demonstrating the absence of something can be as important as something that actually happens. This is sometimes referred to as negative evidence, which plays a part in the civil law as well as the criminal law with which Holmes was dealing.

Positive evidence is, of course, generally better than negative evidence, but negative evidence can be important too, usually in allowing an inference to be drawn as a result of a missing part of the puzzle. It takes three main forms: what isn’t said; the absence of a witness; and the absence of documents.

Not saying something in a statement of case or evidence (in particular not challenging something the other side is saying) can seriously damage your case. That proposition requires no elaboration.

Not adducing evidence from a witness where his or her testimony is obviously crucial can be fatal. In Ahuja Investments Ltd v Victorygame Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2382 (Ch) His Honour Judge Hodge QC, sitting as a High Court judge, complained bitterly that both parties had failed to assist the court by calling evidence from three highly relevant potential witnesses, in breach of their duty under CPR 1.3 to help the court to further the overriding objective to deal with the case justly and proportionately.

“As a result,” he said, “this is not so much a case of ‘Hamlet without the Prince’ as one of Hamlet without any of Polonius, Gertrude or Laertes (or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern without Hamlet, Claudius or the Player).” The consequences in the case before him, he said, went beyond the drawing of appropriate adverse inferences.

The absence of documents may also lead to adverse inferences being drawn. A recent example is Sabbah v Abela [2024] EWHC 1790 (Ch), a case about bankruptcy jurisdiction, in which a major plank of Deputy ICC Judge Agnello KC’s judgment was the debtor’s failure to disclose documents she had been ordered to produce. The judge inferred that the documents which should have been provided would have demonstrated the debtor had stayed in London during the period August 2019 and January 2020, resulting in the jurisdiction issue going against her.

All too often, but not always, of course, the sound of silence is indeed the dog that doesn’t bark.

Training
FREE LUNCH & LEARN SESSIONS – BOOK YOURS NOW!

Manolete's insightful Lunch & Learn sessions are free and available to book now.
We are currently offering the following sessions:

• Director Loan Accounts and Dividends: Ensuring Accountability
• Investigation and Funding of Claims
• Anatomy of a Claim
• Bounce Back Loans

Our one-hour sessions are led by a Manolete litigation finance expert with a focus on practical insights and shared experiences, rather than formal legal training, to foster an environment of collaborative learning.

There are also options to host the session at your offices, online or as a hybrid event, at a time convenient for you. All we need you to do is provide the venue and food and we will do the rest!

So why not sharpen your teams’ skills, learn new tips, and ultimately improve your results with insolvency litigation by booking one or more sessions today?

Contact Head of Business Development Andrew Cawkwell by emailing andrew@manolete-partners.com or call him on 07702 319421.

Case study
The Manolete Model in Action