Goldkorn v MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd & Anor (No. 2) [2025] EWHC 660 (TCC) (20 March 2025)

Goldkorn v MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd & Anor (No. 2) [2025] EWHC 660 (TCC) (20 March 2025)

The application for substitution is refused in the court's discretion due to the applicant's conduct, delay, and abuse of process; Kazu 1 could and should have brought the claim earlier, and allowing substitution would render prior proceedings pointless and prejudice MPA.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 660 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Benjam Goldkorn; First Defendant: MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd; Second Defendant: Kazu Restaurants 1 Ltd (In Liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Substitution of Claimant Under CPR 19.6(3)(b) / Post Judgment, Consequential Hearing
Outcome
Application for substitution dismissed; costs awarded on indemnity basis against Mr Goldkorn and Kazu 1, joint and several.
Legal Topics
Party Substitution, Abuse of Process, Costs Assessment, Limitation Period
Civil Procedure Insolvency Construction Law Party Substitution Abuse of Process Costs Assessment Limitation Period

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Benjam Goldkorn

Claimant

MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd

First Defendant

Kazu Restaurants 1 Ltd (In Liquidation)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Substitution of Claimant Under CPR 19.6(3)(b) / Post Judgment, Consequential Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Kazu Restaurants 1 Ltd should be substituted as claimant under CPR 19.6(3)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the application constitutes abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson
  3. 3 Appropriate basis for costs assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for substitution is refused in the court's discretion due to the applicant's conduct, delay, and abuse of process; Kazu 1 could and should have brought the claim earlier, and allowing substitution would render prior proceedings pointless and prejudice MPA.

Court Disposition

Application for substitution dismissed; costs awarded on indemnity basis against Mr Goldkorn and Kazu 1, joint and several.

Orders

  • Application for substitution under CPR 19.6(3)(b) dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded on the indemnity basis against Mr Goldkorn and Kazu 1, joint and several.