Procedural Judge Julia Clark has ordered that the “full names” of investors, said to have suffered losses after using the peer-to-peer lending platform Lendy as a result of negligent auditors, should be disclosed in contentious litigation at the High Court, the mouseinthecourt can exclusively report.
This site is financed by donations to the ‘Cheese Fund‘ or you can buy me a coffee here
Reporting by freelance journalist Daniel Cloake
The essence of the claim is that professional auditing firm Moore Stephens LLP acted “negligently” and with a lack of “professional scepticism” when they signed off the accounts of the now failed peer-to-peer lending firm Lendy, and in turn this caused losses to members of the public who had used the platform.
We have published all the pleadings for those who wish to read the claim and defence in great detail.
Our previous coverage of this claim can be seen here:
✍️ [July 2024] We previously reported on the claimants case in ‘Lendy auditor caused £15m loss to investors, court papers claim‘.
✍️ [Oct 2024] We also reported that the defendant had been given an extension of time to file their defence in ‘Lendy auditor given new deadline in £15m negligence case‘.
✍️ [Nov 2024] We also reported on the filing of the defence statement in “Lendy auditor: ‘We made mistakes, but blame the dishonest directors’, defence statement says“
✍️ [Jan 2025] We then reported on the response to the defence in “‘Don’t blame the directors … the auditors should have audited!’ – Lendy court doc says“
✍️ [Feb 2025] We then reported on parallel proceedings carried out by the Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales in “Lendy Auditors “Severely Reprimanded” and fined after breaching regulations“
✍️ [July 2025] We then reported on revelations contained within the amended particulars of claim in “Sinking Ship: Lendy’s founders knew collapse was coming – “The company is bust, the model doesn’t work”“
✍️ [September 2025] We reported that the second round of pleadings had been released in £15m Lendy Auditors claim and published a cache of court documents.
The Business and Property Courts where the claim is being heard
Moore Stephens has since become MSR Partners LLP, and Lendy, now in administration, has assigned the claim to Manolete Partners Plc, a self-styled specialist insolvency litigation financing company.
For ease of reference we’ll refer to the claimant as Manolete, and the defendant as the auditors.
At a so-called costs and case management hearing at London’s High Court on Monday 26th January we were told that the request for investor details had been made by the auditors.
The court was told by one of the auditors’ barristers, Ms Pippa Manby, that the request had originally been for the full names and addresses, but the second part of the request had been “dropped in the spirit of cooperation“.
Submissions by the auditor’s other barrister, Ms Rebecca Sabben-Clare KC, reveal that whilst there had been an acceptance of some negligence, their “clients are unable to put a proper value on the quantum of the claim” without further detail of what actually caused these losses.
The auditors sought “proof of the sums invested by the investor, and crucially what caused the loss on that investment…It’s the loss element we have absolutely no means of interrogating“.
Ms Sabben-Clare KC asked “why were these loans loss-making” submitting the question was “not ‘did you suffer a loss?’, but ‘why did you suffer a loss?’“
Was it the fault of the auditors, or the directors, or other factors? “We need to understand it and we don’t” she said.
Ms Manby said the details of the investors would be important for the auditors as it would reveal “how the investor came to lend, and how the losses were suffered.” She added there would need to be “a lot of work on how an investor came to invest” and that they would “need to look at investors on an individual basis“.
Commenting on concerns raised by Manolete about GDPR issues Ms Manby said that the claimant had “not properly articulated what those concerns are” and that “the details of the individual investors” are “plainly relevant“.
In response to the application for disclosure of the investors’ details barrister Mr Rhodri Davies KC, appearing on behalf of Manolete, referred to the situation in a set of Lendy hearings before HHJ Rawlings in which it was said that paying a professional a “reasonable” sum of £300/hr to spend an hour on each of the 9,000 investors could generate a bill of some £2.7m.
This amount was described at the time as “unrealistic” and that the administration couldn’t afford it. The same situation applies here said Mr Davies KC. “It is quite exceptionally unlikely to provide any benefit [for the auditors] to look at the individual investors” he said.
Mr Davies KC said that if the auditors only looked at information that was on the Lendy website, and had been displayed to the investors as a group then this “makes good sense”. He said there was unlikely to be any individual communication between the platform and investors.
Mr Davies KC concluded that the investors are “people who have lost money in a case which is not far from a scam. Their names should not be bandied about.”
Asked by the judge if such a list of names existed Mr Davies KC conceded that “the administrators must have one”. In which case, Master Clarke said, it would take “two seconds to produce…if there is a list I can’t see any reason why this wouldn’t be provided.”
And so the names were ordered to be disclosed. We asked BDO LLP, who are listed on the MSR website as a point of contact for Moore Stephens related enquiries, the following questions:
How they see this data being used.
What enquiries will be made of the individuals concerned.
Why the full names of the investors are required.
Why the addresses of the investors were initially requested.
We have not received a response.
Lendy investors are no strangers to having their personal details handed out. In March 2018, in a High Court judgment which garnered widespread attention in the press, investors in the Homer Row loans found themselves facing joinder to a claim made by the borrower.
Costs
A second issue dealt with at the hearing, and a blow to Manolete, was the issue of costs following an application by the auditors to strike out the claim last year.
Ms Sabben-Clare KC explained to the court that “the particulars of claim, as originally served [by Manolete], were demonstrably deficient” and that the claimants had only amended them when served with an application to strike out the claim. This was said to be unreasonable conduct and the costs incurred by the defendants, said to be some £112k, “should have never been necessary”.
Mr Davies KC in response said the application made by the auditors was not successful as ultimately the claim had not been struck out. He said there was “no doubt” the auditors were negligent in this case citing disciplinary proceedings against the auditors and the firm.
Master Clarke said it “seems to me that the defendant was justified in issuing the application” and “as a result of the issuing of the application substantial amendments were made to the particulars of claim“. This meant the defendant was successful and should therefore receive their costs of the application.
How much of the £112k should be paid by Manolete will be subject to a process called detailed assessment in due course.
The judge declined to carry out the process herself having already run 30 minutes past the allotted hearing time. At the start of proceedings she criticised both legal parties for underestimating the amount of pre-reading time required saying 1 hour was “completely hopeless for the amount of stuff I have to read” in this “complicated case”.
Both KCs offered their unreserved apologies to the court having been warned that “if you’re before me again please ensure the prereading time is adequate.”
A trial date of late 2027 has been put in the court diary, but in the opinion of this humble blogger, don’t go booking travel any time soon. Cases like these rarely go to trial, lest any cobwebs lurking in the audit files receive the full glare of publicity and the judgment of the court. Don’t be surprised if the parties settle.
If matters end up going to trial, and it’s a big if, then expect some fascinating details to come out as the court grapples with exactly why investors lost money.
Case details
Manolete Partners Plc v MSR Partners LLP
Case Number: BL-2024-000191
Hearing date: Monday 26th January 2026 11.00am
Before Master Clark
Manolete Partners Plc are represented by Gateley with barrister Mr Rhodri Davies KC leading Ms Seohyung Kim.
MSR Partners LLP are represented by Clyde & Co with barrister Ms Rebecca Sabben-Clare KC leading Ms Pippa Manby.
Mouse in the Court 