Scott Halborg & Anor v Albert Halborg & Ors

Scott Halborg & Anor v Albert Halborg & Ors

The Appellants' conduct was unreasonable and out of the norm, including failure to accept reasonable offers to settle, abusive litigation, and disproportionate pursuit of appeals with minimal merit. This justified indemnity costs orders in favour of the Respondents from the date of the offers, with limited deductions for minor success and permission hearing aspects.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Scott Halborg; Claimant/appellant: Halborg Limited; Defendant/respondent in Claim F00 LU431 and Trust Claim: Albert Halborg; Defendant/respondent in Claim F00 LU431 and H00 WD393 and Trust Claim: Eileen May Halborg; Defendant/respondent in Claim F00 LU431: More 2 Life Limited; Defendant/respondent in Claim G01 LU395: Hollingsworths Solicitors; Defendant/respondent in Claim G01 LU395: Gregory Hollingsworth; Defendant/respondent in Claim G01 LU395 (barrister Respondent): Stephen Taylor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs) / Post Appeal Costs Judgment
Outcome
Appellants to pay Respondents' costs, largely on the indemnity basis, with limited deductions.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Offers to Settle, Civil Restraint Orders, Abuse of Process, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Offers to Settle Civil Restraint Orders Abuse of Process 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Halborg

Claimant/appellant

Halborg Limited

Claimant/appellant

Albert Halborg

Defendant/respondent in Claim F00 LU431 and Trust Claim

Eileen May Halborg

Defendant/respondent in Claim F00 LU431 and H00 WD393 and Trust Claim

More 2 Life Limited

Defendant/respondent in Claim F00 LU431

Hollingsworths Solicitors

Defendant/respondent in Claim G01 LU395

Gregory Hollingsworth

Defendant/respondent in Claim G01 LU395

Stephen Taylor

Defendant/respondent in Claim G01 LU395 (barrister Respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs) / Post Appeal Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Respondents are entitled to indemnity costs for the appeal and permission hearings
  2. 2 Effect of offers to settle on costs orders
  3. 3 Appropriate basis for assessment of costs given conduct of litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellants' conduct was unreasonable and out of the norm, including failure to accept reasonable offers to settle, abusive litigation, and disproportionate pursuit of appeals with minimal merit. This justified indemnity costs orders in favour of the Respondents from the date of the offers, with limited deductions for minor success and permission hearing aspects.

Court Disposition

Appellants to pay Respondents' costs, largely on the indemnity basis, with limited deductions.

Orders

  • Appellants to pay Solicitor Respondents’ costs of the appeal (including permission hearing) on an indemnity basis.
  • Appellants to pay 95% of Barrister Respondent’s costs of the appeal (including permission hearing) on an indemnity basis.