[2007] EWHC 526 (TCC), 18 March 2008. The case deals with preliminary issues concerning the refurbishment of an office building. The freehold owners of this property leased the building to the claimant company, London and Regional (L&R), with the agreement that (L&R) carries out a refurbishment of the property. (L&R) sublet the property to the Defendant, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), through an Agreement for Lease (AFL). (L&R) agreed with the (MoD) to carry out the refurbishment. (MoD) agreed to pay (L&R) for the cost of undertaking these tenant variations. (L&R) entered into a building contract as employer, with Shepherd Construction Limited (S) to carry out the work. At the end, (MoD) refused to pay L&R. On completion of the refurbishment works, (L&R) and (S) had a settlement agreement, whereby the parties evaluated the work undertaken. This agreement gave the right to (S) to pursue MoD in lieu of the employer L&R. (L&R) claims that the three variations are actually the (MoD)'s liability under the AFL. (MoD) disputes these claims. Held: the judge rejected the defence. He found that there were no provision for a certification. The defendant suffers no prejudice or detriment while (S) and (L&R) suffer real loss. The judge agreed that (L&R) had the legal right to pursue, prosecute and if necessary enforce the (MoD) claims, with (S) controlling that pursuit. The judge considered that there was no champerty as (S) had a legitimate financial interest in the case. The judge rejected the claim of abuse of process because the claims pursued were not speculative.