Choi v Park & Anor [2020] EWHC 413 (QB) (28 February 2020)

Choi v Park & Anor [2020] EWHC 413 (QB) (28 February 2020)

It was not reasonable for the claimant to bring or pursue a claim against Ms Park, as the evidence against her was weak and speculative, and there was no indication of her involvement in the misrepresentation. Therefore, a Sanderson order was not appropriate, and the claimant must bear Ms Park's costs.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 413 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Chong Sung Choi; First Defendant: Mr Chan Mok Park; Second Defendant: Ms Sook Kyung Park
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (misrepresentation, Costs) / Post Trial Costs Judgment
Outcome
Application for Sanderson order refused. Costs allocated according to general rule.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Misrepresentation, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Sanderson Order, CPR 44.2
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Costs Orders Misrepresentation Unlawful Means Conspiracy Sanderson Order CPR 44.2

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Chong Sung Choi

Claimant

Mr Chan Mok Park

First Defendant

Ms Sook Kyung Park

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (misrepresentation, Costs) / Post Trial Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Sanderson order should be made requiring the unsuccessful defendant to pay the successful defendant's costs
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable for the claimant to bring a claim against the second defendant
  3. 3 Allocation of costs following partial success

Ratio Decidendi

It was not reasonable for the claimant to bring or pursue a claim against Ms Park, as the evidence against her was weak and speculative, and there was no indication of her involvement in the misrepresentation. Therefore, a Sanderson order was not appropriate, and the claimant must bear Ms Park's costs.

Court Disposition

Application for Sanderson order refused. Costs allocated according to general rule.

Orders

  • Money judgment for Mr Choi against Mr Park in the amount of £91,532.52
  • Mr Choi to pay Ms Park's costs and his own costs of pursuing Ms Park