![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Von Westenholz & Ors v Gregson & Anor [2022] EWHC 3374 (Ch) (23 December 2022) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/3374.html Cite as: [2022] EWHC 3374 (Ch) |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
The Rolls Building 7 Rolls Buildings Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
(SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
____________________
(1) MS MELISSA VON WESTENHOLZ (Personal Representative of the Estate of Mr Michael Sanders, Deceased) (2) MRS THALIA SANDERS (3) MR RUPERT SANDERS (4) MS MELISSA VON WESTENHOLZ |
Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
(1) MR MARCUS GREGSON (2) MR DANIEL EVANS |
Defendant |
____________________
Paul Sinclair KC (instructed by Keystone Law) appeared for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 3-7 October 2022
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Deputy Judge Robin Vos:
Introduction
5.1 The Claimants claim costs on the indemnity basis both as a result of the way in which the Defendants have conducted their defence and also as a result of Part 36 offers made by them in October 2018 and July 2020. The Defendants say the costs should be assessed on the standard basis.
5.2 The Defendants also say that the Claimants should only recover 50 per cent of their costs as a result of the fact that they put forward numerous causes of action, many of which failed.
5.3 As far as interest on the equitable compensation is concerned, the Claimants seek compound interest at 4 per cent from the date of the payment of the dividend up to date for acceptance of the first Part 36 offer. Thereafter, they claim compound interest at 13 per cent (base rate plus 10 per cent) as a result of the Part 36 offer. The Defendants argue that simple interest at a rate of 1 per cent should be payable for the entire period up to judgment. Both parties accept that the normal judgment rate should apply thereafter.
5.4 The story is similar in relation to interests on costs. The Defendants offer simple interest at 1 per cent from the date the costs were paid up to the date of the order with interest at the normal judgment rate thereafter. The Claimants seek compound interest at 4 per cent up to the date of the first Part 36 offer, then at 13 per cent from that date up to the date of the order and at the judgment rate thereafter.
5.5 As far as a payment on account of costs is concerned, the Claimants suggest approximately £430,000 (being 80 per cent of their budgeted costs). The Defendants offer just over £110,000, being 75% of the amount claimed taking into account their proposed 50 per cent reduction, the exclusion of budgeted costs relating to stages which did not occur and also taking into account costs of approximately £13,000 which are due from the Claimants to the Defendants in relation to an application by the Claimants to amend their particulars of claim.
5.6 Finally, the Defendants seek a stay of the order until 1 April 2023 to allow time to raise funds to meet their liabilities by selling a property owned by Mr Gregson.
Indemnity costs prior to any Part 36 offer
7.1 The Defendants denied various allegations which, at trial, were found in favour of the Claimants and some of which were conceded by the Defendants in closing submissions.
7.2 The Defendants unreasonably refused to mediate or engage in meaningful settlement negotiations.
7.3 The Defendants failed to disclose adverse documents (the bank statements of ASLG) until May 2022 in circumstances where (the Claimants say) the documents should have been disclosed as part of initial disclosure or extended disclosure.
Reduction for issues on which the Claimants failed
20.1 Procuring a breach of contract.
20.2 Deceit.
20.3 Unlawful means conspiracy.
20.4 Lawful means conspiracy.
20.5 Causing loss by unlawful means.
20.6 Dishonest assistance.
The first Part 36 offer
The second Part 36 offer
Interest prior to 18 August 2018
Payment on account
Application for the terms of the order to be stayed
Summary