Scott Halborg & Anor v Albert Halborg & Ors

Scott Halborg & Anor v Albert Halborg & Ors

The vast majority of the applications for permission to appeal were refused as they did not have a real prospect of success, were not of sufficient significance to justify the costs of an appeal, or were plainly within the discretion of the lower court. The making of civil restraint orders was justified by the applicants' persistent and unmeritorious litigation conduct. Costs orders, including indemnity costs, were within the judge's discretion. Limited permission was granted on specific grounds relating to indemnity costs for certain applications and interest on costs, but these did not affect the progression of the underlying litigation.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Scott Halborg; Claimant/appellant: Halborg Limited; Defendant/respondent: Albert Halborg; Defendant/respondent: Eileen May Halborg; Defendant/respondent: More 2 Life Limited; Defendant/respondent: Hollingsworths Solicitors Limited; Defendant/respondent: Gregory Hollingsworth; Defendant/respondent: Stephen Taylor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on all but limited grounds; limited permission granted on specific costs issues.
Legal Topics
Case Management, Civil Restraint Orders, Costs, Permission to Appeal, Disclosure, Recusal
Civil Procedure Case Management Civil Restraint Orders Costs Permission to Appeal Disclosure Recusal

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Halborg

Claimant/appellant

Halborg Limited

Claimant/appellant

Albert Halborg

Defendant/respondent

Eileen May Halborg

Defendant/respondent

More 2 Life Limited

Defendant/respondent

Hollingsworths Solicitors Limited

Defendant/respondent

Gregory Hollingsworth

Defendant/respondent

Stephen Taylor

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applications for permission to appeal meet the threshold for a real prospect of success under CPR 52.6
  2. 2 Whether the making of Limited and General Civil Restraint Orders was justified
  3. 3 Whether the costs orders, including indemnity costs, were properly made

Ratio Decidendi

The vast majority of the applications for permission to appeal were refused as they did not have a real prospect of success, were not of sufficient significance to justify the costs of an appeal, or were plainly within the discretion of the lower court. The making of civil restraint orders was justified by the applicants' persistent and unmeritorious litigation conduct. Costs orders, including indemnity costs, were within the judge's discretion. Limited permission was granted on specific grounds relating to indemnity costs for certain applications and interest on costs, but these did not affect the progression of the underlying litigation.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on all but limited grounds; limited permission granted on specific costs issues.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on all grounds except: (1) indemnity costs for inspection of documents in the Barrister Defendant’s Defence; (2) indemnity costs for Mr and Mrs Halborg’s application dated 8th April 2021; (3) indemnity costs of the mirror image application in the Lawyers’ claim dated 2nd March 2021; (4)...
  • Stays on the underlying litigation lifted; directions to progress the claims.