Turner & Ors v Thomas & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1944 (Ch) (26 July 2022)

Turner & Ors v Thomas & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1944 (Ch) (26 July 2022)

Mr Thomas, as sole shareholder and director, controlled the company's participation and stood to benefit from the appeal. The company is impecunious. Justice requires a costs order against Mr Thomas, applying principles for non-party costs orders by analogy.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1944 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Brenda Elizabeth Turner; Claimant/respondent: Marilyn Margaret Jones; Claimant/respondent: Alan Trevor Jones; First Defendant: Mr Owen Gwilym Thomas; Second Defendant/appellant: O G Thomas Amaethyddiaeth CYG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Costs order made against Mr Thomas for the appeal
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Non Party Costs Liability, Director Liability, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Orders Non Party Costs Liability Director Liability Appeal Procedure

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brenda Elizabeth Turner

Claimant/respondent

Marilyn Margaret Jones

Claimant/respondent

Alan Trevor Jones

Claimant/respondent

Mr Owen Gwilym Thomas

First Defendant

O G Thomas Amaethyddiaeth CYG

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs order should be made against Mr Thomas for the appeal
  2. 2 Application of non-party costs principles to a director who is a party
  3. 3 Justification for costs order against director when company is impecunious

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Thomas, as sole shareholder and director, controlled the company's participation and stood to benefit from the appeal. The company is impecunious. Justice requires a costs order against Mr Thomas, applying principles for non-party costs orders by analogy.

Court Disposition

Costs order made against Mr Thomas for the appeal

Orders

  • Mr Thomas to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal in the sum of £12,750