BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
AND INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
(1) PETER WADDELL HOLDCO LIMITED (2) PETER WADDELL |
Claimants |
|
- and – |
||
(1) BLUEBELL CARS HOLDING LIMITED (2) BLUEBELL CARS TOPCO LIMITED (12) BLUEBELL CARS MIDCO LIMITED (13) BLUEBELL CARS BIDCO LIMITED (14) BAPCHILD MOTORING WORLD (KENT) LIMITED |
Defendants |
|
AND |
||
IN THE MATTER OF BLUEBELL CARS TOPCO LIMITED AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2006 |
||
Between : |
||
PETER WADDELL HOLDCO LIMITED |
Petitioner |
|
- and – |
||
(1) BLUEBELL CARS HOLDING LIMITED (2) BLUEBELL CARS TOPCO LIMITED (3) REZA FARDAD (4) LAURENCE VAUGHAN |
Respondents |
____________________
Mr GEORGE SPALTON KC and Mr MARK WRAITH (instructed by Wilkie Farr & Gallagher UK LLP) for Bluebell Cars Holding Limited and Mr Reza Fardad
Mr EDWARD DAVIES KC and Mr BEN GRIFFITHS (instructed by Stephenson Harwood LLP) for Bluebell Cars TopCo Limited, Bluebell Cars MidCo Limited, Bluebell Cars BidCo Limited, Bapchild Motoring World (Kent) Limited and Mr Laurence Vaughan
Written Submissions filed on: 16 and 20 December 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Trower:
i) The application by PWHL as part of the Petition Application for permission to amend the petition and points of claim, with consequential directions for the service of amended points of defence and replies (the "Petition Amendment Application"), which was contested in part at the November hearing by TopCo, Mr Fardad and Mr Vaughan.
ii) The application by PWHL as part of the Petition Application for a direction that TopCo be prevented from filing and serving points of defence in the petition (the "Debarring Application"), which was contested at the November hearing by Topco.
iii) The application by PWHL and Mr Waddell as part of the Part 7 Application for permission to amend the claim form and to file and serve re-amended particulars of claim, with consequential directions for the service of amended defences and replies (the "Part 7 Amendment Application"), which was not contested at the November hearing.
iv) The application by PWHL and Mr Waddell as part of the Part 7 Application for a stay of the Part 7 claim until after resolution of the petition (the "Stay Application"), which was contested at the November hearing by the BIG Parties and Investor.
The Petition Amendment Application
i) TopCo and Mr Vaughan seek an order that PWHL pay their costs of contesting the amendments which were not allowed, to be summarily assessed on the indemnity basis. TopCo also seeks an order that PWHL pay its costs of and occasioned by the amendments to the petition on the standard basis.
ii) Investor was neutral on the Petition Amendment Application and seeks no order as to costs, while Mr Fardad seeks an order that PWHL pay his costs to be summarily assessed on the standard basis. Investor also seeks an order that PWHL pay its costs of and occasioned by the amendments to the petition on the standard basis.
iii) PWHL's primary position is that the costs should be reserved to the further CMC to be listed on the first convenient date after 7 April 2025. Its alternative position is that the costs of contesting the amendments should be costs in the case as between PWHL and TopCo and that PWHL should pay 75% of Investor's and TopCo's costs consequent on the amendments.
The Debarring Application
i) TopCo seeks an order that PWHL pay its costs to be summarily assessed on the indemnity basis.
ii) PWHL accepts that it should pay TopCo's costs of the Debarring Application but only on the standard basis; it seeks a detailed assessment and suggests an interim payment of £15,000.
The Part 7 Amendment Application
i) The BIG Parties and Investor seek an order that PWHL and Mr Waddell pay their costs of and occasioned by the re-amendments to the particulars of claim on the standard basis.
ii) PWHL and Mr Waddell accept that they should pay the BIG Parties' and Investor's costs of the Part 7 Amendment Application but contend that they should only pay 75% of their costs of and occasioned by the re-amendments to the particulars of claim, to be subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.
The Stay Application
i) The BIG Parties seek an order that PWHL and Mr Waddell pay their costs to be summarily assessed on the indemnity basis.
ii) Investor seeks an order that PWHL and Mr Waddell pay its costs to be summarily assessed on the indemnity basis.
iii) PWHL and Mr Waddell accept that they should pay the costs of the BIG Parties on the standard basis, but they seek a detailed assessment and suggest an interim payment of £40,000.
iv) PWHL and Mr Waddell accept that they should pay 50% of Investor's costs on the standard basis, but they seek a detailed assessment and suggest an interim payment of £10,000.
Indemnity Costs
Summary Assessment
i) PWHL must pay TopCo £40,000 in respect of its costs of the Petition Application (c.70% of the amount claimed);
ii) PWHL must pay Mr Vaughan £48,000 in respect of his costs of the Petition Application (c.70% of the amount claimed);
iii) PWHL must pay Mr Fardad £8,000 in respect of his costs of the Petition Application (c.50% of the amount claimed);
iv) PWHL and Mr Waddell must pay the BIG Parties £80,000 in respect of their costs of the Part 7 Application (c.70% of the amount claimed);
v) PWHL and Mr Waddell must pay Investor £127,000 in respect of its costs of the Part 7 Application (c.55% of the amount claimed).