Anderson v Hyde and Others
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1996 |
| Date | 23 February 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
(C.A., N.I.)
Anderson
and
Hyde
- Litigation - Costs - Company in liquidation - Receiver taking over defence of action in which company unsuccessful - Whether costs could be awarded against the receiver.
Where a receiver takes over the defence of an action against a company that has gone into insolvent liquidation, the court may order that any costs awarded to the plaintiff shall be paid by the receiver and such costs shall be treated as expenses of the receivership.
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Dolphin Quays Development Ltd v Mills (aka Mills v Birchall)
...had been made against receivers. They are Bacal Contracting Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd [1980] 2 AER 655 and Anderson v Hyde [1996] 2 BCLC 144. In the former costs were sought against the receivers as from the commencement of the winding up of the plaintiff and were granted on th......
-
Dolphin Quays Development Ltd v Mills (aka Mills v Birchall)
...can litigate in the name of the company without personal liability can result in unfairness. Carswell LJ (as he then was) said in Anderson v Hyde [1996] 2 BCLC 144 (Northern Ireland Court of Appeal): “If the plaintiff could recover his costs only against the company, they would also rank as......
-
City Hotel (Londonderry) Limited v Samuel Stephenson practising as Stephenson & Co Architecture and Stephenson Architectural Engineering Limited
...to what extent the costs are to be paid) …. Shall be exercised subject to and in accordance with this Order.” [27] In Anderson v Hyde [1996] 2 BCLC 144 this Court accepted that the effect of s 59 of the Judicature Act and the decision of the House of Lords in Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbu......
-
Chin Yoke Choong Bobby and Another v Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd
...the respondents relied on the cases of Bacal Contracting Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd [1980] 2 All ER 655 and Anderson v Hyde [1996] 2 BCLC 144. The defence The appellants first contended that, as receivers and managers, they were agents of Siong Huat and were personally liable on......
Request a trial to view additional results