Crystal Descisions (UK) Ltd & Others v Vedatech
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE PATTEN |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 3500 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: |
| Date | 06 December 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 3500 (Ch)
Mr Justice Patten
Case No:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
MR ROBERT HILDYARD QC and MR GREGORY DENTON-COX appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant company appeared by Mr Subramanian in person
Approved Judgment
Wednesday, 6 December 2006
This is now the conclusion of the first part of the hearing of this CMC. During the course of the last day or so, I have made various directions designed to deal with a variety of applications which have been made on both sides. Those have included an application on the part of the claimants to strike out part of the existing Defence where it pleads allegations of fraud, in particular against Freshfields and Mr Hildyard QC in relation to what they are alleged to have said or represented to the defendants prior to the mediation in relation to the first action.
I have acceded to that application, but there are a number of other issues raised in the CMC which, for a variety of reasons, I need not now go into, I have been required to adjourn to a hearing beginning next term. There is, however, one application which requires to be dealt with today, and that is an application which forms part of the application notice of 27 November 2006 issued by the claimants, seeking in paragraph 7 an order that, unless by 4pm London time on 18 December 2006, the defendants pay to the claimants the sums they have been ordered to pay in respect of costs in these proceedings, they be debarred from defending the proceedings and the claimants be entitled to judgment without further order of the court.
That application is based on three orders for costs made in the course of these proceedings. The orders in question are an order of Pumfrey J of 19 May 2004, an order of Pumfrey J again of 3 August 2004 and an order of Lightman J on 30 November 2005 by which he summarily assessed costs which he had already ordered against the defendants under orders of 7 October 2005 and 12 October 2005. Although there have been other orders for the immediate payment of costs made in these proceedings, the claimants do not rely on those for the purposes of this application, simply because the time for appealing those orders has not yet expired.
The first two of the orders, that is to say the two orders of Pumfrey J that I have mentioned, were for detailed assessment, but on the basis that the assessment would take place prior to the final assessment of costs in the action and lead to an immediate payment of those costs once so assessed. In particular, in relation to the order made on 19 May, that was an order, as is apparent from the transcript of the proceedings, for the immediate assessment and the payment forthwith of the costs by the defendants on an indemnity basis. The learned judge made it clear in his judgment that he regarded the application in question as being one which ought never to have been made.
The result of the two orders of Pumfrey J for detailed assessment was that the costs in question, based on bills submitted by Freshfields, were assessed by Master Gordon Saker on 19 October 2005. He issued costs certificates in the sum, first of all, of £48,920.61 and secondly, in the sum of £239,283.24. Lightman J assessed the costs that he was concerned with in the sum of £15,600.
The two cost certificates were served but did not result in any payment being made in accordance with the terms of the certificates. Mr Subramanian on behalf of the defendants sought to challenge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brian Sargeant v UK Insurance Ltd and Another
...the order sought. I consider, in particular, that this is a case which is some distance removed from the situation in Crystal Decisions (UK) Limited & Others v Vedatech [2006] EWHC 3500 (CH). The amount concerned is modest in size and certainly rather more modest than the costs which were ......
-
Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd v Thomas Ian Sinclair and Others
...The authorities on the approach to be taken where costs orders are not paid by parties to ongoing litigation. 23 In Crystal Decisions UK Limited v Vedatech Corp [2006] EWHC 3500 (Ch) Patten J said: [9]. … The rules of court under the CPR do not prescribe any particular procedure or conditio......
-
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd
...been committed for contempt. 44 In addition, I was taken to a decision of Mr Justice Patten, as he then was, namely, Crystal Decisions (UK) Limited v Vedatech [2006] EWHC 3500 (Ch) in which the judge said this at paragraph 10: “It is perfectly true, of course, that parties in the position ......
-
Farhan Ahmed Junejo v New Vision TV Ltd
...for the Defendant relied on the approach to such applications set out by Patten J in Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd v Vedatech Corp [2006] EWHC 3500 (Ch) and considered by Sir Richard Field (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) in Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and others ......