John Riordan & Ors v Moon Beever Solicitors
[2023] EWHC 659 (SCCO)
Tulip Trading Limited v Roger Ver
9 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 2970 (Ch)
High Court
Someone was sued and tried to get the lawsuit thrown out. Even though there's an appeal, the judge decided to throw out the lawsuit because there wasn't a big difference between this case and other similar ones. The person who won gets some money to cover their legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Roger Ver (14th defendant) applied to set aside orders granting Tulip Trading Limited (TTL) permission to serve him out of the jurisdiction.
- •TTL initially argued a material distinction between Ver and other defendants, but later conceded this point.
- •Andrews LJ granted permission to appeal against previous orders, raising a 'serious issue to be tried'.
- •Master Clark dismissed TTL's application to stay Ver's challenge.
- •Ver's challenge is limited to the 'serious issue to be tried' question.
- •TTL's concerns revolved around potential appeal disruption by Ver.
- •The Court of Appeal appeal hearing is scheduled for December 7th and 8th.
Legal Principles
Balance of prejudice is the main consideration when deciding whether to stay or adjourn proceedings.
Master Clark's judgment [2022] EWHC 2784
A court should not prejudge the outcome of other litigation.
Johns v Solent SD Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 790
The court should take into account the possibility that a Court of Appeal decision may be reversed on appeal.
Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon & others (No 5) [1989] 1 WLR 1244
Unless there is good reason, a reasonable sum on account of costs should be ordered.
CPR rule (implied)
Outcomes
Ver's application to set aside the orders granting TTL permission to serve him out of the jurisdiction is granted.
The court found no good reason to depart from its previous decision, especially as neither party relies on any relevant distinction between Ver and the other defendants. The permission to appeal doesn't automatically mean there is a serious issue to be tried.
Costs of both the claim and the application are to be subject to detailed assessment.
Significant overlap in work between the claim and application makes a separate assessment impractical. Concerns raised about substantial counsel fees also support this.
An interim payment on account of costs of £95,000 is awarded to Ver (approximately 50%).
This figure takes into account the likelihood of costs recovery, difficulty of recovery, TTL's means, prospects of a successful appeal, and the imminence of assessment. An escrow account was deemed unnecessary.
Similar Cases
Chedington Events Limited v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake & Anor (Quantum trial consequential orders)
[2024] EWHC 11 (Ch)
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)
CHIA-HSING WANG v FLOREAT PRIVATE LIMITED
[2023] EWHC 1123 (Comm)
Geoffrey Galley v Royal Forex Ltd
[2023] EWHC 3245 (Comm)