In Plus Group Ltd and Others v Pyke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BROOKE,Lord Justice Brooke,Lord Justice Sedley,Lord Justice Jonathan Parker,LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY,LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 1055,[2002] EWCA Civ 147,[2002] EWCA Civ 370 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2001/0472,B2/2001/0472,B2/2001/0472/A |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 05 July 2002 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 1055
Lord Justice Brooke
Lord Justice Sedley
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
B2/2001/0472
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Levy QC)
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
MR N YELL (instructed by Trevor Jenkin & Co, 30 Queens Road, Reading) appeared on behalf of the Appellants
MR N VINEALL (instructed by Thompson Leatherdale, 27 Russell Street, Reading) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Friday 5 July 2002
The parties are, of course, aware of the situation, so there is no need to go into any great detail in this judgment on costs. In short, all four claimants claimed damages against Mr Pyke for breach of fiduciary duty. They lost before Judge Levy QC and in this court. There was a letter written on 1 December 1998 by Mr Pyke's solicitors, offering to pay £50,000 on that claim, inclusive of interest, with costs to date. That had the protective effect of a Calderbank letter under the pre-CPR regime.
Mr Pyke counterclaimed a total sum of just over £115,000, together with interest. He was awarded that sum against all four claimants before the judge. In this court that order was adjusted with the effect that he received the same total sum, but the first claimant had to pay just over £26,000 of it by way of principal, and the second claimant the balance. Both had to pay interest. The counterclaim was dismissed against the other two claimants, but Mr Yell and his solicitors have continued to hold themselves out as acting for the fourth appellant company, even though it was dissolved before the appeal.
The claimants sought to set off two different amounts, of £9,800 and £25,000 respectively, against the sum due on the counterclaim. They failed before the judge; they failed in this court. As part of their appeal against the judge's findings, the claimants challenged his findings of fact as to the veracity of the two protagonists and also the adequacy of his reasons. Both challenges failed. Mr Vineall's point to us today is that if at any rate one of those challenges succeeded there was a danger of a new trial.
We have been shown not only the offer of 1 December 1998 but also an offer made by the claimants' solicitors on 27 November 2000, between the main part of the hearing in front of the judge and the final part in the following January, when the claimants offered to settle the matter on the basis of both claim and counterclaim being withdrawn with no order as to costs, with the interim judgment being left intact in so far as not already satisfied. That offer had no effect at all in the subsequent events.
We have heard submissions as to the way in which costs should fall both here and below. Mr Vineall submitted that at least 80 per cent of the costs of the appeal were expended on the first issue, the breach of fiduciary duty issue, on which his client was protected by the letter of 1 December 1998; and as to the balance, he says the claimants scored only a partial victory on the counterclaim, in that the third claimant was let out of liability and the amounts that the other two claimants had to pay were adjusted.
Mr Yell's argument is that his clients should have their costs of the appeal because the claimants have succeeded in dispelling their joint and several liability for the whole of the counterclaim, and Mr Vineall's client could have protected himself by an appropriate Part 36 offer. He invited us to take a robust view that, although the third appellant (which was in effect Mr Plank's trading arm since his relationship with Mr Pyke broke down) showed a profit of nearly £600,000 for the year ended 31 March 2000, being the last year for which its accounts have been filed, it should be disregarded as a claimant on the basis that the claim was really being made by the first two appellants.
We find it impossible to take that course. The third claimant went into the appeal with its eyes open. It was hoping to recover judgment in its favour for up to £250,000 plus interest, to change the order for costs in the court below and to have an order for costs in its favour in this court. Although Mr Yell made submissions based on the fact that Mr Plank has so arranged his company's affairs that there is no money in the first two claimants and the third claimant is in administration (although there is money available to creditors there), we take the view that we are bound to disregard the pecuniosity of any particular claimant.
We bear in mind the provisions of CPR 44.3. In our judgment the appropriate course is to make a broad-brush order, not distinguishing between the claimants either in this court or in the court below. Taking into account CPR 44.3(4)(b), 44.3(6)(a) and 44.3(7), we take the view that the appropriate order is that the claimants should pay the defendant 80 per cent of his costs on the substantive appeal. We take into account the adjustments which are suggested for the solicitors' attendance and the number of hours of solicitors' attendance. On the other hand, we also take into account today's hearing and we take the view that there should be a grand total of £25,000, inclusive of VAT, and we assess the total costs in the Court of Appeal in that sum, of which the defendant should recover 80 per cent.
So far as the costs in the court below are concerned, we are bound to revisit that order for costs. We take seriously the effect of the letter written on 1 December 1998, protecting the defendant for the costs of the claim. Mr Yell submitted that the judge might well have taken into account against the defendant the fact that he gave dishonest answers and gave dishonest evidence to the court in the plight in which he found himself as a result of the way Mr Plank had treated him; that he had behaved in an evasive way in relation to the extent to which his new company was carrying on business. He also said that the judge would have been able to take into account the extent to which the costs had been made higher than they otherwise need have been by the expensive way in which Mr Pyke carried on the litigation. He submitted that we should therefore start at a figure of 85 per cent (the figure awarded by the judge) and adjust it downwards. Mr Yell also submitted that in the case of the third claimant, who is now let off liability on the counterclaim as a result of our order, we should reduce the figure downwards to the amount of 50 per cent.
In our judgment, the appropriate course for us to take is to give full weight to the offer of 1 December 1998 and the view that this court, as well as the judge below, have formed as to Mr Plank's conduct in this matter. It is unrealistic for us to seek to distinguish between the claimants. We should take again a broad-brush approach to costs, which will have the effect of leaving the judge's order as it stands, so that each of the claimants should pay the defendant 85 per cent of his costs below, to be subject to detailed assessment.
I agree.
I also agree.
ORDER: Appeal refused. The respondent to have 80 per cent of his costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at £25,000, inclusive of VAT. The judge's order on costs below to stand, those costs to be subject to detailed assessment. The £5,000 previously paid into court to be paid out forthwith in partial satisfaction of that sum.
(Order not part of approved judgment)
[2002] EWCA Civ 147
Lord Justice Brooke
B2/2001/0472/A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Levy QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
MR NICHOLAS VINEALL (Instructed by Thompson Leatherdale, 23 Russell Street, Reading, Berkshire RG1 7XD) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR NICHOLAS YELL (Instructed by Trevor Jenkin & Co, 30 Queens Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 4AU) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Wednesday, 6th February 2002
This is an application by the respondent, Mr Pyke, for an order that the appellants provide security for costs in relation to the appeal that they are bringing against the order of His Honour Judge Levy in the Central London County Court on 12th February 2001, when he dismissed the claimant's claim against Mr Pyke for damages for breach of fiduciary duty and gave judgment for Mr Pyke on a counterclaim for a sum of about £115,000 together with about £40,000 of interest and ordered the claimants to pay Mr Pyke 85% of the costs of the claim and the counterclaim.
The appellants are all in a group of companies. The first appellant was the holding company, and the three other appellants were all subsidiaries. The only evidence until quite recently about the financial affairs of the group emerged from their latest filed accounts up until 31st March 2000, which was nearly two years ago. They were dated 26th January 2001 and filed about a year ago. From those accounts it appeared that the third appellant, Joinery Plus Ltd, was the only trading company in the group—the other non-trading subsidiaries will be dissolved in the near future—and the accountants expressed a fundamental uncertainty about the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd v Richard Andrew Cowling and Another
...relation to a maturing business opportunity). He identified 11 principles which later were described as "valuable" by Brooke LJ in Plus Group Limited v Pyke [2002] 2 BCL 201 at paragraph [71] and they were also later endorsed by Lord Justice Rix in Foster Bryant Surveying Limited v Bryant, ......
-
Fairford Water Ski Club Ltd v Craig Ronald Cohoon
...rule’, each of which must be considered separately: see Don King Productions Inc v. Warren [2000] Ch 291 and In Plus Group Ltd v. Pyke [2002] 2 BCLC 201, 220. They said the emphasis of the Club's claim was under the latter but, in relation to the former, a fiduciary might act for more than......
-
O'Donnell v Shanahan
...the “no conflict rule” and the “no profit rule”; and must be considered separately: see Don King Productions Inc v. Warren and In Plus Group Ltd v. Pyke [2002] 2 BCLC 201, 220. 176 The distinction between the “no conflict rule” and the “no profit rule” is not always easy to identify and the......
-
Halcyon House Ltd v Caroline Baines and Others
...[2002] BCC 600and the authorities there cited and discussed, accurately stated the law. In this court inIn Plus Group Ltd. v. Pyke [2002] EWCA Civ 370; [2003] BCC 332Brooke LJ described the Simonet analysis as "valuable" (at [71]). Mr. Livesey said: "1. A director, while acting as such, ha......
-
SELF-DEALING AND NO-PROFIT RULES: COMPANIES ACT 2016
...s/o Pennusamy [2015] 2 AMR 1; [2015] 1 MLJ 773. 21 Foster Bryant Surveying Ltd v Bryant [2007] BCC 804; In Plus Group Ltd v Pyke [2002] 2 BCLC 201. 22 Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp (1984) 156 CLR 41; Poon Ka Man Jason v Cheng Wai Tao [2017] 1 HKC 463. 23 The Straits Se......
-
RECONFIGURING THE NO CONFLICT RULE
...to their personal exploitation of the opportunity if they were to avoid a liability to account. 73In Plus Group Ltd v PykeUNK[2002] 2 BCLC 201 at [87]. 74 See Boardman v PhippsELR[1967] 2 AC 46; New Zealand Netherlands Society v KruysWLR[1973] 1 WLR 1126. See Berg, “Fiduciary Duties: A Dire......
-
Table of Cases
...The [1994] 2 AC 324, [1994] 3 WLR 1, [1994] 2 All ER 250, PC 95, 104 Plant v Woods 176 Mass 492 (1900) 380 Plus Group v Pyke [2002] EWCA Civ 370, [2002] 2 BCLC 201 171 Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595, [2002] QB 48, [2001] 3 WLR 183, [......
-
Fiduciary Conduct - A Tailored Application Lord Upjohn's Dissent in Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
...the present case are very 63 Above, n 61, at p 144. 64 Murad v Al Saraj [2005] EWCA Civ 959. 65 Ibid, at [121]. 66 Plus Group v Pyke [2002] EWCA Civ 370. 67 Foster Bryant Surveying Ltd v Bryant [2007] EWCA Civ 200, [2007] Bus LR 1565. 172 Part III – Equity and Property Law individual’ 68 an......