Ashraf v Lester Dominic Solicitors (a firm) & Ors [2022] EWHC 2046 (Ch) (29 July 2022)

Ashraf v Lester Dominic Solicitors (a firm) & Ors [2022] EWHC 2046 (Ch) (29 July 2022)

The Fifth and Sixth Defendants were successful in their applications; the Claimant's conduct in relation to the Sixth Defendant's application was unreasonable and took the case out of the norm, justifying indemnity costs. Interim payments on account of costs are appropriate given the sums claimed and the conduct of the parties.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2046 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Seema Ashraf (the personal representative of the estate of Syed Ul Haq deceased); First Defendant: Lester Dominic Solicitors (a firm); Second Defendant: Mr L. Kan; Third Defendant: Mr Attarian; Fourth Defendants: Mr Bavinder Singh Nijjar and Mrs Sonia Nijjar; Fifth Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar; Sixth Defendant: The Bank of Scotland PLC; Seventh Defendant: Rees Page (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Applications for Summary Judgment/strike Out / Judgment on Costs Following Appeal and Applications
Outcome
Fifth and Sixth Defendants awarded costs of their applications against the Claimant; Fifth Defendant's costs on standard basis, Sixth Defendant's costs on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Indemnity Costs, Detailed Assessment
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Summary Judgment Strike Out Indemnity Costs Detailed 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seema Ashraf (the personal representative of the estate of Syed Ul Haq deceased)

Claimant/appellant

Lester Dominic Solicitors (a firm)

First Defendant

Mr L. Kan

Second Defendant

Mr Attarian

Third Defendant

Mr Bavinder Singh Nijjar and Mrs Sonia Nijjar

Fourth Defendants

The Chief Land Registrar

Fifth Defendant

The Bank of Scotland PLC

Sixth Defendant

Rees Page (a firm)

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Applications for Summary Judgment/strike Out / Judgment on Costs Following Appeal and Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Fifth and Sixth Defendants are entitled to their costs of their respective applications for summary judgment and/or strike out against the Claimant;
  2. 2 Whether those costs should be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis;
  3. 3 Quantum and interim payments on account of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The Fifth and Sixth Defendants were successful in their applications; the Claimant's conduct in relation to the Sixth Defendant's application was unreasonable and took the case out of the norm, justifying indemnity costs. Interim payments on account of costs are appropriate given the sums claimed and the conduct of the parties.

Court Disposition

Fifth and Sixth Defendants awarded costs of their applications against the Claimant; Fifth Defendant's costs on standard basis, Sixth Defendant's costs on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Fifth Defendant awarded costs of its application against the Claimant, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.
  • Interim payment on account of Fifth Defendant's costs ordered in the sum of £20,000, payable within 28 days.