BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT (KBD)
Fetter Lane London, EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
(1) CLICK ABOVE CORBEN MEWS LIMITED (COMPANY REGISTRATION NO. 11102451) (ACTING BY ITS FIXED CHARGE RECEIVERS VICTORIA LIDDELL, ALEXANDRA WARD AND TAMMY WILKINS) (2) VICTORIA CAPITAL TRUST |
Applicants |
|
- and - |
||
(1) 381 SOUTHWARK PARK ROAD RTM COMPANY LIMITED (2) SOPHIA ELIZABETH SMITH (3) ARMAND JUNIOR FRANCOIS SABLON (4) PIZARRAS Y BALDOSAS SA (5) LAURA JANE MACKIE (6) CHARLES WILLIAM GEORGE FRY and EDWARD CHRISTOPHER MURRAY FRY (7) GLORIA NOK TUNG CHAN (8) PROPERTIES (RESIDENTIAL 2) LIMITED (9) SALIM LALANI and ROZMIN LALANI (10) KAMALA NADIR KYZY BUCHHOLZ (11) LUKE EDWARD PRICE |
Respondents |
____________________
Adam Benedict (instructed by Adam Benedict Ltd.) for the Respondents
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Jefford:
Conduct of the parties
Success
i) The respondents sought the dismissal or stay of the application which they failed to obtain. That is, with respect, no more than saying that the applicants were successful.
ii) The court found the claim for a beneficial interest was "inherently improbable". That again is no more than saying that the applicants were successful. In light of the argument on priority, the issue of a beneficial interest did not need to be determined. In any case, it was the product of the difficulties faced by the respondents because of non-compliance with the court's orders in respect of disclosure.
iii) The court found that the submission that the freezing injunction was unnecessary following the liquidation of Click St Andrews had considerable force. That is so but the relevant passage in the judgment is followed by the observation that the discharge of the injunction was a matter for the liquidators and that no such application had been made since the liquidation.
iv) The court considered it open to it to require an undertaking as to damages if the variation had not been made. That slightly overstates the position in that the application being made was for a retrospective undertaking as well as a prospective one and it was only a prospective undertaking which I would have considered granting.
Post hearing
Order as to costs in principle
Basis of assessment
Summary assessment
i) The total claimed in July was £24,058 (plus VAT). The increase in costs is therefore over £18,000 or about 75%.
ii) There are additional attendances on opponents amounting to over £3,500.
iii) Counsel's fees, other than for the hearing, have increased from £2,750 to £8,000. A further sum of over £5,000 is claimed for preparing the costs submissions.
The further offers
The respondents' alternative submission