Nelson v Greening & Sykes (Builders) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1358 (18 December 2007)

Nelson v Greening & Sykes (Builders) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1358 (18 December 2007)

Mr Nelson held the property as nominee and trustee for Ms Hanley, and the litigation was conducted for her benefit and with her approval. The charging order was properly made against Mr Nelson as trustee under section 2(1)(b)(i) of the 1979 Act. The non-party costs order against Ms Hanley was justified as she funded and directed the litigation, and the court had power to order her to pay costs already assessed against Mr Nelson, given their close identification in the proceedings.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 1358
Parties
Appellant/claimant: David Nelson; Respondent/defendant: Greening & Sykes (Builders) Limited; Appellant/interested Party: Shirene Hanley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Non Party Costs Orders, Trustee and Beneficiary Liability, Specific Performance, Costs Assessment
Property Law Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Charging Orders Non Party Costs Orders Trustee and Beneficiary Liability Specific Performance Costs Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Nelson

Appellant/claimant

Greening & Sykes (Builders) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Shirene Hanley

Appellant/interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a charging order could be imposed on property held by a nominee as trustee for a third party under section 2(1)(b)(i) of the Charging Orders Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether a non-party costs order could be made against a beneficiary who funded and directed litigation conducted in the name of a nominee
  3. 3 Whether the court could order a non-party to pay costs already assessed against a party without a further assessment

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Nelson held the property as nominee and trustee for Ms Hanley, and the litigation was conducted for her benefit and with her approval. The charging order was properly made against Mr Nelson as trustee under section 2(1)(b)(i) of the 1979 Act. The non-party costs order against Ms Hanley was justified as she funded and directed the litigation, and the court had power to order her to pay costs already assessed against Mr Nelson, given their close identification in the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Charging order against Mr Nelson as trustee for Ms Hanley upheld
  • Non-party costs order against Ms Hanley upheld for previously assessed costs