British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Arrow Nominees Inc & Ors v Blackledge & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 378 (28 February 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/378.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 378
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
Strand London WC2 Thursday, 28th February 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
and
LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK
____________________
| (1) ARROW NOMINEES INC | ||
| (a British Virgin Islands Corporation) | ||
| (2) LORRAINE BLACKLEDGE | ||
| Petitioners/Respondents to Appeal | ||
| (3) NIGEL JEREMY TOBIAS | ||
| A Party for the Purpose of Costs | ||
| and | ||
| (1) GRAHAM BLACKLEDGE | ||
| (2) MARGARET BLACKLEDGE | ||
| (3) GR & MM BLACKLEDGE PLC | ||
| Respondents to the Petition/Appellants | ||
| (4) BODYCARE (HEALTH & BEAUTY) LIMITED | ||
| Respondent to the Petition |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040 Fax: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms Jane Giret QC appeared on behalf of Messrs Berg & Co.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- LORD JUSTICE WARD:The question which arises today is the extent to which Berg & Co should undertake further enquiries in order to comply with the order we made on 27th July 2000 and who should pay for this jolly little exercise.
- In so far as Berg & Co provided the information, it seems to me at least, pursuant to agreement between the solicitors as to what was required at that infant stage, to have been effectively a search of their accounts and a disclosure of what monies were coming in and out of their client account. No provision was made for the costs of that exercise when we dealt with the matter in July 2000. Berg & Co did not attend. They did not take up the liberty to apply. They did the work. They had an argument about costs, but it was agreed that the costs should be "parked". We consider that those costs should lie where they fall; and Berg & Co have already effectively written them off. So there will be no order for the costs of their providing the disclosure that they have.
- As for the costs of undertaking a trawl through 25 files, if that matter had been raised before us originally or on an application for liberty to apply, we would undoubtedly have ordered that provision be made for those costs. Berg & Co are not, for these purposes, parties to the litigation and, on Norwich Pharmacal principles, the appellants who seek their help should pay for it. Therefore, Berg & Co will, in accordance with their undertaking, conduct a further search through their files to give further compliance with the order, but at the appellants' expense.
- This application comes before us because there was deafening silence after about October 2000, or at least December 2000. The matter was restored without further notice to Berg & Co and without any attempt to deal with the matter sensibly. There was an exchange of correspondence, a letter of 25th February and precious little time to respond. Eversheds have jumped the gun. They have made no decent or proper attempt to get the agreement which stared everybody in the face as the obvious agreement. Therefore, on terms either that we draw an order requiring Berg & Co to do this extra work or that Berg & Co give their undertaking to do it (the form of the order to be settled by counsel), the costs of today's exercise are to be paid to Berg & Co by the appellants.
Order: counsel to settle form of order; costs of today in the sum of £7,000 to be paid to Berg & Co by the appellants.