TCPC Management Limited v Windrush Alliance UK Community Interest Company
[2024] EWHC 809 (Ch)
Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Matthew Hudson
7 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch)
High Court
Someone tried to force a company into bankruptcy using questionable tactics. The court stopped them and made them pay the company's legal bills, a bigger amount than usual due to their bad behavior.
Key Facts
- •Invenia Technical Computing Corporation and Invenia Labs Limited (Applicants) sought injunctions against Matthew Hudson (Respondent) to restrain the presentation of winding-up petitions based on five statutory demands.
- •The Respondent filed several applications, including for relief from sanctions and adjournment.
- •The court granted the injunctions and dismissed the Respondent's applications.
- •The court subsequently addressed the issue of costs.
Legal Principles
Costs generally follow the event, but the court can make a different order.
CPR 44.2(2)
To be the 'successful' party, one needs to succeed overall, not on each issue.
Kastor Navigation Co Ltd & others v AXA Global Risks (UK) Ltd & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 277 at [143]
The court may deny costs to a successful party who unreasonably refuses ADR (mediation).
Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust [2004] EWCA 576
Indemnity costs are awarded when conduct is 'out of the norm'.
Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 879
Presenting a winding-up petition when there's a genuine cross-claim is an abuse of process.
Coilcolour Ltd v Camtrex Ltd [2015] EWHC 3202 (Ch)
Outcomes
Respondent to pay Applicants' costs of all applications.
Applicants were successful in obtaining injunctions and dismissing Respondent's applications. Respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable and an abuse of process.
Costs for Injunction Application and Strike Out Application awarded on the indemnity basis.
Respondent's conduct, including numerous unsuccessful applications, excessive correspondence, late evidence submissions, and unsubstantiated allegations, was deemed 'out of the norm'.
Costs for other applications awarded on the standard basis.
Respondent's conduct, while flawed, did not reach the level of 'out of the norm' required for indemnity costs.
Interim costs of £37,807 awarded to Applicants.
To enable recovery of part of costs before detailed assessment, despite Respondent's claim of impecuniosity.
Similar Cases
Scott Halborg & Anor v Albert Halborg & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1190 (KB)
RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (DERBYSHIRE) LIMITED v DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & Anor.
[2022] EWHC 1209 (TCC)
Seaton Management Limited v Stephen Henry Evans-Jones
[2024] EWHC 1883 (Ch)
Maggie Otto & Ors v Inner Mongolia Happy Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2920 (Ch)