Miah Ibar Lone v Michael Andreas Petrou
[2024] EWHC 153 (KB)
Paul Andrew Whittaker v Bertha UK Limited
13 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2554 (Ch)
High Court
A man lost a court case because he didn't follow the judge's instructions. He appealed many times, but the judge said he didn't have a good reason, and he had to pay a lot of money.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Whittaker (Claimant) brought proceedings against Bertha UK Ltd (Defendant) concerning a shareholder's agreement.
- •Various case management orders were made against Mr. Whittaker regarding disclosure, with costs orders imposed.
- •Mr. Whittaker failed to comply with these orders, leading to further applications and appeals.
- •Mr. Whittaker appealed multiple case management decisions and costs orders.
- •Mr. Whittaker made numerous applications for stays of execution and to set aside orders.
- •The Defendant served statutory demands for unpaid costs.
- •Mr. Whittaker made a contempt application alleging unauthorized disclosure of information.
Legal Principles
Power of the court to proceed in the absence of a party; relisting applications.
CPR Part 23.11
Failure to attend trial; setting aside judgments or orders.
CPR Part 39.3
Test for permission to appeal; considering wider factors for case management decisions.
CPR Part 52.6, Practice Direction 52A, paragraph 4.6
Powers of an appeal court; review of lower court decisions.
CPR Part 52.21
Stay of execution; balancing risks of injustice to both parties.
CPR Part 52.16, Hammond Suddard Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2065
Summary assessment of costs; considering prejudice caused by non-compliance.
CPR Part 44.6, Practice Direction 44, paragraph 9.5, MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd [2001] Costs LR 147, Group M UK Ltd v Cabinet Office [2014] 6 Costs LR 1090
Extended Disclosure; further orders for non-compliance.
Practice Direction 57A, paragraph 17
Contempt application; permission required for certain allegations.
CPR Part 81.3
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused for Appeals 126, 127, and 149.
Lack of real prospect of success; insufficient significance of issues; procedural irregularities not unjust; inadequate evidence.
Set Aside Application dismissed.
Lack of merit; failure to comply with orders; inadequate medical evidence.
Stay of execution applications refused.
Inadequate disclosure of financial circumstances; lack of cogent evidence of impecuniosity; permission to appeal refused.
First Contempt Application dismissed.
Permission not required; lack of merit; proceedings in open court not confidential.
All applications dismissed except for the First Stay Application and the first PTA Application (which will be reconsidered at a further hearing).
Applications deemed without merit; further hearing granted for reconsideration of remaining applications and costs, and potential civil restraint order.