Lee v Futurist Developments Ltd [2011] EWHC 582 (Ch) (02 February 2011)

Lee v Futurist Developments Ltd [2011] EWHC 582 (Ch) (02 February 2011)

The unless order made by Deputy District Judge Berkson was set aside as it was made without jurisdiction and inappropriately on a without notice basis. There was no sufficient connection between the damages awarded to Futurist and the costs awarded to Mr. Lee to justify equitable set-off or a discretionary set-off. Mr. Lee's application for a stay of execution was refused as he had not demonstrated a realistic prospect of recovering costs sufficient to meet the judgment debt. Futurist was the substantially successful party on the applications, and Mr. Lee was ordered to pay two-thirds of Futurist's costs.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 582 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Jennifer Jean Lee; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Futurist Developments Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Derek Lee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Litigation (costs and Enforcement Applications) / Post Trial, Enforcement and Costs Applications Following Reserved Judgment
Outcome
Deputy District Judge Berkson's unless order set aside; application for stay of execution refused; Mr. Lee to pay two-thirds of Futurist's costs; hearings on 22 February and 29 March vacated; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Equitable Set Off, Stay of Execution, Costs Orders, Jurisdiction of Lower Courts, Detailed Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Enforcement of Judgments Equity Equitable Set Off Stay of Execution Costs Orders Jurisdiction of Lower Courts +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Jean Lee

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Futurist Developments Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Derek Lee

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Litigation (costs and Enforcement Applications) / Post Trial, Enforcement and Costs Applications Following Reserved Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Deputy District Judge Berkson's unless order was valid and should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether there should be a stay of execution of the judgment against Mr. Lee pending assessment of costs
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Lee is entitled to set off his costs against the damages awarded to Futurist

Ratio Decidendi

The unless order made by Deputy District Judge Berkson was set aside as it was made without jurisdiction and inappropriately on a without notice basis. There was no sufficient connection between the damages awarded to Futurist and the costs awarded to Mr. Lee to justify equitable set-off or a discretionary set-off. Mr. Lee's application for a stay of execution was refused as he had not demonstrated a realistic prospect of recovering costs sufficient to meet the judgment debt. Futurist was the substantially successful party on the applications, and Mr. Lee was ordered to pay two-thirds of Futurist's costs.

Court Disposition

Deputy District Judge Berkson's unless order set aside; application for stay of execution refused; Mr. Lee to pay two-thirds of Futurist's costs; hearings on 22 February and 29 March vacated; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Deputy District Judge Berkson's order set aside.
  • No stay of execution of the judgment against Mr. Lee.