WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)
Matrix Receivables Ltd v Musst Holdings Ltd
19 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2167 (Ch)
High Court
Two companies went to court over a previous case's rulings. One company (MRL) was found to have improperly used documents from another case, but it didn't hurt the other company (Musst) significantly. Musst tried and failed to get MRL's case thrown out or to win a summary judgment. Because of these failures and the lack of serious harm, Musst has to pay the other company's legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Matrix Receivables Limited (MRL) and Musst Holdings Limited (Musst) were involved in consequential arguments following a previous judgment ([2024] EWHC 1495 (Ch)).
- •The arguments concerned the form of order regarding Musst's collateral use allegation and costs orders for various applications.
- •MRL was accused of breaching the rule against collateral use of documents from the Musst v Astra proceedings.
- •Musst applied for summary judgment and to strike out MRL's claim for abuse of process.
- •MRL sought to amend its claim to include an allegation of concealment.
Legal Principles
Rule against collateral use of documents obtained through disclosure in other proceedings (CPR 31.22).
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
Costs generally follow the event, but the court has discretion to make different orders (CPR 44.2(2)).
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
Indemnity costs are awarded where the conduct of a party is 'out of the norm', not necessarily requiring moral obloquy.
Case law and cited principles
Abuse of process can arise in a second action against different parties if manifestly unfair or brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
Case law and cited principles
Summary judgment is inappropriate where a fact-finding exercise is required.
Lewison LJ's summary of the application for permission to appeal
Outcomes
No order as to costs for the informal application concerning collateral use.
A breach of the rule against collateral use was found, but no specific prejudice or deployment of documents was demonstrated. Serious allegations against MRL's solicitors were unsubstantiated.
Costs of the filleting exercise to be costs in the case.
The filleting should have been done from the outset. The exercise was deemed proportionate.
Musst to pay MRL's costs for the summary judgment application.
MRL was entirely successful in defeating the summary judgment application. No reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.
Musst to pay MRL's costs for the abuse of process application.
MRL was entirely successful in resisting the strike-out. While the abuse of process argument remained open at trial, there was little expectation of success. The applications were closely linked, and separating costs was impractical.
MRL to bear the costs of the amendment to plead concealment.
The amendment was granted without indulgence to MRL. Delay was a factor, but overall, the factors were largely self-cancelling, leading to the costs being costs in the case.
Similar Cases
Kew Green Group Limited & Anor v Jamerson Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1628 (KB)
Sportcal Global Communications Limited & Anor v Michael John Laflin
[2023] EWHC 656 (KB)
Ashraful Alam Khokan v Jawad Hossain Nirjhor (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 1873 (KB)
Matrix Receivables Limited v Musst Holdings Limited
[2024] EWHC 1495 (Ch)