DEBORAH GIDDENS v BRIAN FROST & Ors

DEBORAH GIDDENS v BRIAN FROST & Ors

Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds reflected evidential deficiencies in the Defendants' case, not procedural irregularity. The Defendants bore the evidential burden to prove deliberate deletion of emails and failed to adduce expert evidence. The costs claimed by the Claimant were discounted to reflect conduct and scope of disclosure. A stay of proceedings and enforcement of the costs order was granted pending any renewed application to the Court of Appeal.

Parties
Claimant: Deborah Giddens; First Defendant: Brian Frost; Second Defendant: The Frost Partnership; Third Defendant: George Ronald Frost
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Consequential Matters After Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; costs summarily assessed; stay granted pending appeal application.
Legal Topics
Costs, Permission to Appeal, Stay of Proceedings, Limitation, Disclosure
Civil Procedure Costs Permission to Appeal Stay of Proceedings Limitation Disclosure

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Giddens

Claimant

Brian Frost

First Defendant

The Frost Partnership

Second Defendant

George Ronald Frost

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Consequential Matters After Trial of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Costs of the preliminary issue
  2. 2 Permission to appeal
  3. 3 Stay of costs order and proceedings pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds reflected evidential deficiencies in the Defendants' case, not procedural irregularity. The Defendants bore the evidential burden to prove deliberate deletion of emails and failed to adduce expert evidence. The costs claimed by the Claimant were discounted to reflect conduct and scope of disclosure. A stay of proceedings and enforcement of the costs order was granted pending any renewed application to the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; costs summarily assessed; stay granted pending appeal application.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Claimant's costs of the preliminary issue, summarily assessed at £38,400 including VAT.
  • Proceedings and enforcement of the costs order stayed pending outcome of any appellant's notice filed within 21 days.