Axnoller Events Ltd v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Paul Matthews |
| Judgment Date | 17 May 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1282 (Ch) |
| Date | 17 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: E00YE350, F00YE085 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2021] EWHC 1282 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN BRISTOL
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
Bristol Civil Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR
HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case Nos: E00YE350, F00YE085
Andrew Sutcliffe QC and William Day (instructed by Stewarts Law LLP) for the Guy parties
Ashfords LLP for the Brakes
Costs assessments on written submissions, without a hearing
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
This short written judgment deals with two points arising out of proceedings following the hand-down of my judgment on the trial of the claim in Brake v Guy [2021] EWHC 671 (Ch), known to the parties as the “Documents Claim”. On 13 April 2021, after an oral hearing conducted remotely by video-conference, I refused an application by the Brakes for me to recuse myself from presiding over the two then forthcoming trials in further litigation between (in substance) the same parties, known as the Possession Proceedings and the Eviction Proceedings respectively. I subsequently gave written reasons for that decision: [2021] EWHC 949 (Ch). The first of the two points relates to the costs of that recusal application. Secondly, on 21 April 2021, following written submissions, I decided that those two same forthcoming trials would be adjourned and relisted in the autumn: [2021] EWHC 982 (Ch). The second point relates to the costs thrown away by those adjournments.
Payment on account of costs of the Recusal Application
In relation to the first matter, on 2 May 2021, again following written submissions, I decided that the Brakes would pay the Guy parties' costs of the Recusal Application on the indemnity basis, to be the subject of detailed assessment (because no schedule of costs had been served) if not agreed. Because of the absence of a schedule, I was not then in a position to decide about ordering a payment on account, as provided for by CPR rule 44.2(8). That schedule was sent to the court and to the Brakes under cover of a letter dated 4 May 2021. In that letter, the Guy parties' solicitors said that their clients “intend to seek an interim payment on account of the Recusal Costs. Consequently, the Guy Parties' statement of costs is enclosed”. However, that letter did not say formally that their clients asked the court to order and assess the appropriate sum, and neither did it make any submissions as to what that sum should be (as would usually be the case if a request were being made).
In an undated written submission in reply, dealing mainly with the assessment of costs thrown away by the adjournment, the Brakes noted the service of the schedule and that it was the Guy parties' “intention to seek a payment on account in respect of” the Recusal Costs, but added that “no such request has been made at the time of these submissions and the Brake Parties' [sic] will respond to such request once made”. However, they went on to “put a marker down in respect of those costs at this stage”, and made certain comments about the costs of three of the four counsel of the Guy parties. These comments were responded to by the Guy parties in written submissions from Mr Sutcliffe QC and Mr Day, dated 10 May 2021. They said that the Brakes in their submissions had not identified any good reason for not ordering a payment on account, and therefore one should be made.
It is thus clear that the parties are at cross purposes. The Guy parties may well have intended to make a request for a payment on account, but the Brakes did not understand what was said in that sense, and I have some sympathy with them. What the Guy parties said in their solicitors,' letter was not clear. I accept that CPR rule 44.2(8) does not depend on a request having been made, but in my view the Guy parties' letter confused the issue by referring to their intention to seek an interim payment. The sensible course is therefore for the Guy parties as soon as possible to indicate in writing what they consider a reasonable sum would be, with any supporting reasoning, for the Brakes to respond also in writing to that indication by 4 PM on the second business day following, and for the Guy parties make any written submissions in reply by 4 PM on the second business day following that response. I will then deal with the matter as soon as possible.
Summary assessment of costs thrown away by adjournment
In relation to the second matter, again on 2 May 2021 and following written submissions, I decided that the Brakes would in any event pay the Guy parties' costs thrown away by the adjournment, although the costs of the adjournment application itself should be the Guy parties' costs in the cases. The Guy parties served a costs schedule dealing with the costs thrown away by the adjournment, and I received written submissions on that schedule from the parties. This is accordingly my summary assessment.
The Guy parties have however limited their claim on this summary assessment to (i) a part of counsels' brief fees for the two trials, and (ii) the costs of preparing the costs schedule (which are small). Although I am told that further solicitors' costs have also been incurred, the only such costs claimed are those in (ii), apparently on the basis that it would be too...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Axnoller Events Ltd v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake
...Introduction 1 This further short written judgment follows that which I handed down on 17 May 2021, available under neutral citation [2021] EWHC 1282 (Ch). It deals with a final point arising out of post-trial proceedings in Brake v Guy [2021] EWHC 671 (Ch) (the “Documents Claim”), in whi......
-
Brake V Guy Breathing Space
...interest to the outside world (but if you think otherwise you can find them at [2021] EWHC 671 (Ch), [2021] EWHC 949 (Ch) and [2021] EWHC 1282 (Ch)). The latest judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews, Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake & Anor (Costs) [2021] EWHC 1500 (Ch), is of interest, however, as it co......