Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors
[2024] EWHC 881 (Ch)
Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Co Ltd v Kei Kin Hung & Ors
3 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2445 (Comm)
High Court
A court hearing was delayed because the claimant messed up some paperwork and didn't plan enough time. The judge decided the claimant has to pay most of the extra costs, but other parties involved also share some of the blame.
Key Facts
- •Application for costs of adjourned hearing of application to make charging order absolute.
- •Hearing initially estimated at three days, later agreed to be five days due to complexities.
- •Central issue: Whether second, third, and fourth respondents are ultimate beneficial owners of property.
- •Claimant and fourth respondent made applications for relief from sanctions.
- •Claimant's application stemmed from late challenge to authenticity of documents, violating rules.
- •Fourth respondent's application concerned witness statements not translated from Mandarin.
- •Adjournment resulted in loss of three full days of Commercial Court time.
Legal Principles
Rules regarding service of notices challenging document authenticity.
CPR
Principles for granting relief from sanctions.
CPR
Court's inherent power to manage its own time and resources.
Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
Responsibility for costs of adjournment.
Practice Note issued by Mrs Justice Cockerill and co-signed by the judge.
Outcomes
Claimant to pay costs of adjournment.
Claimant's failure to issue notices in time, late application for relief from sanctions, and causing application to be listed at trial start.
Second and third respondents to recover 75% of their costs from claimant.
Partial responsibility for failing to address inadequate time estimate.
Fourth respondent to recover 50% of their costs from claimant.
Reflects costs of their relief from sanctions application and shared responsibility for time estimate.
Fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents to recover all their costs from claimant.
Limited role and no direct responsibility for time issues.
Similar Cases
Tanka Thakali & Ors v Navin Kumar Gauchan & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3032 (SCCO)
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)
Sportcal Global Communications Limited & Anor v Michael John Laflin
[2023] EWHC 656 (KB)
Ana Tomic & Anor v The Residences by Damoor Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1348 (Comm)