Dunfermline Building Society v Ghana Commercial Finance Ltd and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeJudge Mackie
Judgment Date16 July 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 3397 (QB)
Docket NumberCase No: 2014-183
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Date16 July 2014

[2014] EWHC 3397 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

LONDON MERCANTILE COURT

The Rolls Building

Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1NL

Before:

His Honour Judge Mackie

(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)

Case No: 2014-183

Between:
Dunfermline Building Society
Claimant
and
Ghana Commercial Finance Limited and Others
Defendant

Ms Laura Tweedy (instructed by Eversheds) appeared on behalf of the Claimant

Mr Gopee appeared In Person

Approved Judgment

Judge Mackie
1

This is an application by the claimant, Dunfermline Building Society, for an order that Mr Gopee do personally pay the costs of an application heard by me on 11 April this year. At that hearing counsel represented the claimant and Mr Gopee (as he almost always does) some of the companies with whom he is connected, this time Ghana Commercial Finance Limited and Pangold Estate Limited.

2

Having heard from both sides, I concluded that the court did not strictly have jurisdiction to determine the application brought by the defendants, Ghana and Pangold, but I thought it right to consider the application on its merits. I considered the application and reached the view that on its merits it was quite hopeless and that was why an order came to be made. I concluded that the application had been totally without merit, both procedurally and on the facts. I declined, however, to make a civil restraining order on that day. I also declined to make any order against Mr Gopee personally because I thought it right that he have an opportunity to consider and to be heard on a separate occasion about that issue and that he should have an opportunity to receive and to file evidence. On that occasion I then made an order that Mr Gopee be named as third defendant. I do not repeat the grounds upon which I refused the application and concluded that it was wholly without merit because those can be found in a transcript of what I said on that occasion. The substance of the objections of Dunfermline Building Society, which I upheld, are summarised in the claimant's skeleton argument presented for that hearing.

3

Since that time there have been two witness statements served on behalf of the claimant by Mr Hugh Powell, an associate at the claimant's solicitors. In the first witness Mr Powell summarises the stage at which this action has reached. He recognises that claims for costs by against a non-party are exceptional. He says that in this case the application was hopeless and doomed to failure. He points to the fact that the third defendant, Mr Gopee, and a Mauritius company are the shareholders of the first defendant and suggests that the likelihood of anyone in Mauritius having anything to do with the case is remote. He also points to the fact that the third defendant is the sole director and has represented the first and second defendants throughout and has filed witness statements on their behalf. He suggests that the third defendant could have no bona fide belief that the other defendants had an arguable case, or that it was in the interest of either company to advance the application.

4

He points to the fact that Mr Gopee could not properly have been a party to the action...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT