Key Facts
- •Claimant and Defendant are sisters and equal shareholders/directors of three Japanese restaurant companies.
- •Claimant sought copies/inspection of company books and records (bank statements, accounts, contracts, tax returns) from 1 January 2015.
- •Defendant initially agreed but later opposed the claim, then provided documents but refused to pay Claimant's costs.
- •Dispute over access to company documents spanned several years, with repeated requests by the Claimant.
- •Defendant alleged Claimant stole company funds after receiving documents, an allegation denied by the Claimant.
- •The court heard evidence from both parties but did not make findings on the theft allegations due to lack of cross-examination.
Legal Principles
Costs generally follow the event unless the court orders otherwise.
CPR 44.2
Court's discretion in granting orders under section 388(1)(b) Companies Act 2006.
Companies Act 2006, section 388(1)(b)
Witness statements are not dismissed unless wholly incredible.
Long v Farrer & Co [2004] EWHC 1774 (Ch)
Outcomes
Costs order in favour of the Claimant.
Defendant failed to provide requested documents before legal action, despite previous agreements and ample opportunity. The court found the Claimant would likely have succeeded in obtaining an order for the documents. The serious allegations of theft could not be determined without cross-examination and did not justify denying the costs order.
Costs of the costs hearing to follow the event (subject to further argument).
No reason given to deviate from the general rule that costs follow the event.