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 or controlling interest in the litigation. The loans and trust advances were bona fide and not shams. The procedural unfairness in the original hearing, where adverse findings were made without cross-examination or adequate opportunity to respond, rendered the non-party costs order unjust. The requirements for an exceptional non-party costs order were not met.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1874 (QB)
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 in Civil Fraud Action) / First Tier Appeal From Queen's Bench Master to High Court Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed; non-party costs orders set aside.
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Pure Funders, Abuse of Process, Bankruptcy, Family Funding of Litigation
Civil Procedure Costs Non Party Costs Orders Pure Funders Abuse of Process Bankruptcy Family Funding of Litigation

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 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 in Civil Fraud Action) / First Tier Appeal From Queen's Bench Master to High Court Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants (family members) should be liable for a non-party costs order for funding litigation found to be abusive and vexatious
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were 'pure funders' or had a sufficient interest to justify a costs order
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness occurred in the making of adverse findings without cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were pure funders acting out of familial support, with no direct financial or controlling interest in the litigation. The loans and trust advances were bona fide and not shams. The procedural unfairness in the original hearing, where adverse findings were made without cross-examination or adequate opportunity to respond, rendered the non-party costs order unjust. The requirements for an exceptional non-party costs order were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; non-party costs orders set aside.

Orders

  • The non-party costs orders against Cynthia Rowbury, Richard Dweck, and Suzy Dweck are set aside.
  • No order for costs against the appellants in respect of the fraud action or the non-party costs application.