Lingfield Properties (Darlington) Ltd v Padgett Lavender Associates [2008] EWHC 2795 (QB) (18 November 2008)

Lingfield Properties (Darlington) Ltd v Padgett Lavender Associates [2008] EWHC 2795 (QB) (18 November 2008)

The court found that Hepker was not the real party to the litigation, did not personally fund or stand to benefit, and the claimant company maintained independent board control; no impropriety was established, and it would not be just to make a non-party costs order against him under Section 51.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2795
Parties
Claimant: Lingfield Properties (Darlington) Ltd; Defendants: Padgett Lavender Associates; Applicant (non Party Costs Order Respondent): Michael Hepker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2008
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Litigation / Post Trial Costs Application (non Party Costs Order)
Outcome
Application for non-party costs order against Michael Hepker dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Section 51 Supreme Court Act 1981, Indemnity Costs, Litigation Funding, Corporate Control
Civil Procedure Costs Non Party Costs Orders Section 51 Supreme Court Act 1981 Indemnity Costs Litigation Funding Corporate Control

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Lingfield Properties (Darlington) Ltd

Claimant

Padgett Lavender Associates

Defendants

Michael Hepker

Applicant (non Party Costs Order Respondent)

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Litigation / Post Trial Costs Application (non Party Costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Michael Hepker should be joined for the purposes of a non-party costs order under Section 51 Supreme Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether Hepker was the 'real party' to the litigation
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances justify a non-party costs order against Hepker

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Hepker was not the real party to the litigation, did not personally fund or stand to benefit, and the claimant company maintained independent board control; no impropriety was established, and it would not be just to make a non-party costs order against him under Section 51.

Court Disposition

Application for non-party costs order against Michael Hepker dismissed.

Orders

  • Michael Hepker is not joined for the purposes of a non-party costs order; no costs order made against him.