Vellacott v The Convergence Group Plc & Ors [2007] EWHC 1774 (Ch) (31 July 2007)

Vellacott v The Convergence Group Plc & Ors [2007] EWHC 1774 (Ch) (31 July 2007)

The Robinsons, particularly Mr Robinson, controlled and funded the litigation, stood to benefit from its outcome, and promoted a dishonest counterclaim through insolvent companies. In the interests of justice, and given the insolvency of the companies, a non-party costs order is appropriate against Mr Robinson. The evidence against Mrs Robinson is weaker, but her involvement and benefit justify a lesser order.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1774 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Chantrey Vellacott; First Defendant: The Convergence Group PLC; Second Defendant: Convergence Group International SA; Third Defendant: Alan Stuart Macdonald Robinson; Fourth Defendant: Gail Farrin Robinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Non Party Costs Order / Post Trial, Costs Application
Outcome
Non-party costs order granted against Mr Robinson; partial costs order against Mrs Robinson.
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Directors' Liability for Costs, Professional Negligence, Corporate Insolvency, Litigation Funding
Civil Procedure Insolvency Professional Negligence Non Party Costs Orders Directors' Liability for Costs Corporate Insolvency Litigation Funding

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chantrey Vellacott

Claimant

The Convergence Group PLC

First Defendant

Convergence Group International SA

Second Defendant

Alan Stuart Macdonald Robinson

Third Defendant

Gail Farrin Robinson

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Non Party Costs Order / Post Trial, Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-party costs orders should be made against Mr and Mrs Robinson under section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 for costs incurred by the claimant in defending the counterclaim brought by insolvent companies controlled by the Robinsons.
  2. 2 Whether Mr and Mrs Robinson controlled, funded, and stood to benefit from the litigation.
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim was promoted dishonestly.

Ratio Decidendi

The Robinsons, particularly Mr Robinson, controlled and funded the litigation, stood to benefit from its outcome, and promoted a dishonest counterclaim through insolvent companies. In the interests of justice, and given the insolvency of the companies, a non-party costs order is appropriate against Mr Robinson. The evidence against Mrs Robinson is weaker, but her involvement and benefit justify a lesser order.

Court Disposition

Non-party costs order granted against Mr Robinson; partial costs order against Mrs Robinson.

Orders

  • Mr Alan Robinson to pay the claimant's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis, subject to detailed assessment.
  • Mrs Gail Robinson to pay a proportion of the claimant's costs, subject to detailed assessment.