Dweck v Forstater [2010] EWHC 1874 (QB) (26 July 2010)

Dweck v Forstater [2010] EWHC 1874 (QB) (26 July 2010)

The appellants were pure funders acting out of familial support, with no direct financial interest in the litigation, and the funding was by way of bona fide loans. There was procedural unfairness in the original hearing as adverse findings were made without cross-examination or fair opportunity to respond. The non-party costs orders were not justified and must be set aside.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1874
Parties
Claimant: Leslie Dweck; Defendant/applicant/respondent: Mark Forstater; Third Party/respondent/appellant: Cynthia Rowbury; Third Party/respondent/appellant: Richard Dweck; Third Party/respondent/appellant: Suzy Dweck
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Non Party Costs Order / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; non-party costs orders set aside.
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Funding Litigation, Abuse of Process, Bankruptcy, Family Funding
Civil Procedure Costs Non Party Costs Orders Funding Litigation Abuse of Process Bankruptcy Family 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Dweck

Claimant

Mark Forstater

Defendant/applicant/respondent

Cynthia Rowbury

Third Party/respondent/appellant

Richard Dweck

Third Party/respondent/appellant

Suzy Dweck

Third Party/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Non Party Costs Order / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-party costs orders should be made against family members who funded litigation
  2. 2 Whether the funding was by way of loan or gift
  3. 3 Whether the funders were 'pure funders' or had an interest in the litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were pure funders acting out of familial support, with no direct financial interest in the litigation, and the funding was by way of bona fide loans. There was procedural unfairness in the original hearing as adverse findings were made without cross-examination or fair opportunity to respond. The non-party costs orders were not justified and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; non-party costs orders set aside.

Orders

  • Non-party costs orders against Cynthia Rowbury, Richard Dweck, and Suzy Dweck are set aside.
  • No order as to costs of the appeal.