Glidepath Holdings BV & Ors v Early Red Corporation & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 525 (19 April 2005)

Glidepath Holdings BV & Ors v Early Red Corporation & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 525 (19 April 2005)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge's costs order was correct, dividing costs according to the issues on which each party succeeded. The appellants failed to show any error of principle or that the judge's decision was plainly wrong. The reasons for the order were apparent from the judgment, and the costs judge would determine the allocation of costs for each issue. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 525
Parties
Respondent/appellant: Glidepath Holdings BV; Respondent/appellant: Jeimon Holdings NV; Respondent/appellant: Glidepath UK Limited; Appellant/respondent: Early Red Corporation NV; Appellant/respondent: John Thompson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Freezing Orders, Disclosure Orders, Arbitration Stay, Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Jurisdiction, Full and Frank Disclosure
Civil Procedure Arbitration Injunctions Costs Orders Freezing Orders Disclosure Orders Arbitration Stay Norwich Pharmacal Orders +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glidepath Holdings BV

Respondent/appellant

Jeimon Holdings NV

Respondent/appellant

Glidepath UK Limited

Respondent/appellant

Early Red Corporation NV

Appellant/respondent

John Thompson

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order made by Eady J was correct in light of the concessions made by the respondents prior to the hearing.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were entitled to all or the bulk of their costs given the outcome of the applications.
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in principle or failed to give adequate reasons for the costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge's costs order was correct, dividing costs according to the issues on which each party succeeded. The appellants failed to show any error of principle or that the judge's decision was plainly wrong. The reasons for the order were apparent from the judgment, and the costs judge would determine the allocation of costs for each issue. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellants to pay respondents' costs of the appeal.