Goknur Gida Maddeleri Enerji Imalat Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret Ve Sanati A.S. v Organic Village Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2542 (QB) (30 September 2020)

Goknur Gida Maddeleri Enerji Imalat Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret Ve Sanati A.S. v Organic Village Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2542 (QB) (30 September 2020)

It would not be just to make a non-party costs order against Mr Aytacli because, although he controlled and funded the litigation, he did so as a director and guarantor for the benefit of the company and its creditors, not for his own benefit, and there was no impropriety or bad faith; the inability to pay costs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2542 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Goknur Gida Maddeleri Enerji Imalat Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret ve Sanati A. S.; First Defendant: Organic Village Ltd; Second Defendant: Mr Cengiz Aytacli
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Non Party Costs Order / Post Trial, Costs Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Directors' Liability for Costs, Costs Assessment, Corporate Veil, Litigation Funding
Civil Procedure Company Law Non Party Costs Orders Directors' Liability for Costs Costs Assessment Corporate Veil Litigation Funding

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goknur Gida Maddeleri Enerji Imalat Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret ve Sanati A. S.

Claimant

Organic Village Ltd

First Defendant

Mr Cengiz Aytacli

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-party costs order should be made against a former director who controlled and funded litigation on behalf of an insolvent company
  2. 2 Whether the director was the 'real party' to the litigation for the purposes of section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances justify piercing the corporate veil to impose costs liability on the director

Ratio Decidendi

It would not be just to make a non-party costs order against Mr Aytacli because, although he controlled and funded the litigation, he did so as a director and guarantor for the benefit of the company and its creditors, not for his own benefit, and there was no impropriety or bad faith; the inability to pay costs arose from the company's impecuniosity and inability to fund detailed assessment, not from misconduct.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for non-party costs order against Mr Aytacli refused