Melton Town Football Club Limited v Hunts Contractors Limited
[2023] EWHC 3133 (TCC)
Adam Robert Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital Ltd
13 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2467 (KB)
High Court
The claimants lost their case because they didn't follow the court's order to put money aside to pay the defendant's legal fees if they lost. They tried to change the order, but the judge said no because they had already caused lots of delays, and their new plan wasn't good enough. The judge punished them by ending their case.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (individuals and corporate entities) invested in an unsuccessful option trading strategy in 2014.
- •Claimants allege breaches of contract, statutory duties, negligence, misrepresentation, and dishonesty by the defendant.
- •Defendant applied for security for costs against corporate claimants in October 2021.
- •Master Stevens' initial judgment ([2022] EWHC 973 (QB)) required security, potentially via an ATE policy with anti-avoidance provisions, addressing solvency and direct payment.
- •Claimants initially failed to comply with the Security Order, which included a Deed of Indemnity.
- •Claimants subsequently offered an ATE policy from a new provider (AIE) without a Deed of Indemnity.
- •Claimants applied to amend/vary the Security Order due to alleged mistakes and changed circumstances (AIE's inability to provide a Deed).
- •Defendant issued a cross-application to strike out the corporate claimants' claims for non-compliance.
Legal Principles
Slip Rule (CPR 40.12): Court can correct accidental slips or omissions in a judgment or order; cannot allow 'second thoughts'.
CPR 40.12, White Book commentary at 40.12.1, Bristol-Myers Squibb v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 414, Leo Pharma A/S v Sandoz Ltd [2010] EWHC 1911 (Pat)
Variation of Order (CPR 3.1(7)): Court can vary or revoke an order; considerations of finality, preventing 'two bites at the cherry', and appeals apply.
CPR 3.1(7), Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518, Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen [2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch)
Extension of Time (CPR 3.1(2)(a)): Court has discretion to grant extensions, considering the overriding objective.
CPR 3.1(2)(a), Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] 1WLR 3026, Andrew James Barclay-Watt & Ors v Alpha Panareti Public Ltd [2021] EWHC 3298 (Comm), Harrison Jalla v Shell International Trading [2021] EWCA Civ 1559, Everwarm Ltd v BN Rendering Ltd [2019] EWHC 2078(TCC)
Outcomes
Application to amend under the Slip Rule refused.
No 'mistake' was made; the Security Order reflected the court's intention; claimants agreed to the order's terms; new arguments/authority should have been raised earlier.
Application for variation under CPR 3.1(7) refused.
No material change in circumstances beyond claimants' control; significant delay caused by claimants' inaction; inadequate alternative security; failure to comply with court orders.
Application for extension of time refused.
Claimants' significant delay; inadequate alternative security; prejudice to defendant; overriding objective requires compliance with orders; even under Denton principles, relief would be refused.
Corporate claimants' claims struck out.
Failure to provide adequate security as ordered; non-compliance with the Security Order.
Similar Cases
Sanita Limited v Rare Art (London) Ltd
[2023] EWHC 807 (Ch)
WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)
Credico Marketing Limited & Anor. v Benjamin Gregory Lambert & Anor.
[2023] EWCA Civ 262
Starting Point Recruitment Limited v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 982 (Comm)