Halborg & Anor v Halborg & Ors [2022] EWHC 1621 (QB) (23 June 2022)

Halborg & Anor v Halborg & Ors [2022] EWHC 1621 (QB) (23 June 2022)

The applications below were properly found to be totally without merit, justifying the making of Limited Civil Restraint Orders and General Civil Restraint Orders. The judge exercised discretion appropriately in making costs orders, including indemnity costs, due to the unreasonable and abusive conduct of the claimants. No procedural unfairness or irregularity was found. Permission to appeal was refused on all but a few minor academic points regarding costs, which may proceed only if not wholly academic.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1621
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Scott Halborg; Claimant/appellant: Halborg Limited; Defendant/respondent (f00 Lu431): Albert Halborg; Defendant/respondent (f00 Lu431): Eileen May Halborg; Defendant/respondent (f00 Lu431): More 2 Life Limited; Defendant/respondent (g01 Lu395): Hollingsworths Solicitors Limited; Defendant/respondent (g01 Lu395): Gregory Hollingsworth; Defendant/respondent (g01 Lu395): Stephen Taylor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From County Court (case Management Orders, Civil Restraint Orders, Costs) / Permission to Appeal Hearing Before High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on all substantive grounds; granted only on limited, potentially academic points regarding costs orders.
Legal Topics
Case Management, Civil Restraint Orders, Totally Without Merit Applications, Permission to Appeal, Indemnity Costs, Fee Remission
Civil Procedure Costs Litigation Management Case Management Civil Restraint Orders Totally Without Merit Applications Permission to Appeal Indemnity Costs +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Halborg

Claimant/appellant

Halborg Limited

Claimant/appellant

Albert Halborg

Defendant/respondent (f00 Lu431)

Eileen May Halborg

Defendant/respondent (f00 Lu431)

More 2 Life Limited

Defendant/respondent (f00 Lu431)

Hollingsworths Solicitors Limited

Defendant/respondent (g01 Lu395)

Gregory Hollingsworth

Defendant/respondent (g01 Lu395)

Stephen Taylor

Defendant/respondent (g01 Lu395)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From County Court (case Management Orders, Civil Restraint Orders, Costs) / Permission to Appeal Hearing Before High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applications dismissed below were 'totally without merit' justifying civil restraint orders
  2. 2 Whether the making of Limited and General Civil Restraint Orders was procedurally and substantively justified
  3. 3 Whether the costs orders (including indemnity costs) were within the proper exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The applications below were properly found to be totally without merit, justifying the making of Limited Civil Restraint Orders and General Civil Restraint Orders. The judge exercised discretion appropriately in making costs orders, including indemnity costs, due to the unreasonable and abusive conduct of the claimants. No procedural unfairness or irregularity was found. Permission to appeal was refused on all but a few minor academic points regarding costs, which may proceed only if not wholly academic.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on all substantive grounds; granted only on limited, potentially academic points regarding costs orders.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on all grounds except minor costs points.
  • Permission to appeal on costs orders relating to the 15 March 2021 and 5 July 2021 applications, and certain indemnity costs, granted only if not wholly academic.