Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors

Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors

The Second to Seventh Defendants had no legal or practical impediment to complying with paragraph 7 of the order of 26 February 2018; their application to amend the order and set aside subsequent compliance orders was without merit and motivated by the First Defendant's desire to avoid disclosure to HMRC. The Claimant's application for a permanent stay of costs orders was refused as the Defendants' bad behaviour did not impact the Claimant's rights or justice.

Parties
Claimant: Starbibi Raja; First Defendant: Nicholas van Hoogstraten; Second Defendant: Maximilian Hamilton; Third Defendant: Alexander Hamilton; Fourth Defendant: Britannia Hamilton; Fifth Defendant: Richmond Hamilton; Sixth Defendant: Lincoln Hamilton; Seventh Defendant: Nicholas Rhodes Hamilton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Applications
Outcome
Application by Second to Seventh Defendants dismissed; Claimant's application for permanent stay of costs orders dismissed.
Legal Topics
Compliance With Court Orders, Costs, Stay of Execution, Legal Professional Privilege, Contempt of Court
Trusts Tax Civil Procedure Compliance With Court Orders Costs Stay of Execution Legal Professional Privilege Contempt of Court

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Starbibi Raja

Claimant

Nicholas van Hoogstraten

First Defendant

Maximilian Hamilton

Second Defendant

Alexander Hamilton

Third Defendant

Britannia Hamilton

Fourth Defendant

Richmond Hamilton

Fifth Defendant

Lincoln Hamilton

Sixth Defendant

Nicholas Rhodes Hamilton

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 7 of the order of 26 February 2018 should be amended to refer to the First Defendant instead of the Second to Seventh Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the orders of 11 May, 25 June, and 20 July 2018 should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether a permanent stay should be granted preventing enforcement of costs orders in favour of the Second to Seventh Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Second to Seventh Defendants had no legal or practical impediment to complying with paragraph 7 of the order of 26 February 2018; their application to amend the order and set aside subsequent compliance orders was without merit and motivated by the First Defendant's desire to avoid disclosure to HMRC. The Claimant's application for a permanent stay of costs orders was refused as the Defendants' bad behaviour did not impact the Claimant's rights or justice.

Court Disposition

Application by Second to Seventh Defendants dismissed; Claimant's application for permanent stay of costs orders dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to amend paragraph 7 of the order of 26 February 2018 dismissed.
  • Application to set aside orders of 11 May, 25 June, and 20 July 2018 dismissed.