Henderson & Jones Ltd v Ross & Ors [2023] EWHC 1585 (Ch) (09 June 2023)

Henderson & Jones Ltd v Ross & Ors [2023] EWHC 1585 (Ch) (09 June 2023)

Indemnity costs were warranted due to claimant's speculative, weak, and thin claims, unreasonable conduct including publicity and overstated claim value, and serious allegations against professionals requiring them to defend themselves. Payment on account set at 70% of updated costs, with pre-judgment interest rates differentiated by defendant, and post-judgment interest to run 21 days after order. Permission to appeal refused as grounds had no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1585 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Henderson & Jones Limited; First Defendant: David Jason Ross; Second Defendant: Second Defendant; Third Defendant: Gerard Barnes; Fifth Defendant: Fifth Defendant; Sixth Defendant: Sixth Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed; indemnity costs awarded to all defendants; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Directors' Duties, Fraud, Conspiracy, Interest on Costs, Permission to Appeal
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Directors' Duties Fraud Conspiracy +2 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henderson & Jones Limited

Claimant

David Jason Ross

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Second Defendant

Gerard Barnes

Third Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Litigation / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded to defendants
  2. 2 Appropriate rate and timing of pre- and post-judgment interest on costs
  3. 3 Amount and timing of payment on account of costs

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were warranted due to claimant's speculative, weak, and thin claims, unreasonable conduct including publicity and overstated claim value, and serious allegations against professionals requiring them to defend themselves. Payment on account set at 70% of updated costs, with pre-judgment interest rates differentiated by defendant, and post-judgment interest to run 21 days after order. Permission to appeal refused as grounds had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; indemnity costs awarded to all defendants; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Indemnity costs awarded to all defendants.
  • Payment on account of costs set at 70% of updated figures for each defendant.