Benjam Goldkorn v MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd & Anor

Benjam Goldkorn v MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd & Anor

The application for substitution is refused as an exercise of the court's discretion due to delay and conduct, and independently as an abuse of process because the claim should have been raised earlier, causing prejudice to MPA.

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 / Post Judgment, Consequential Hearing
Outcome
Application refused; costs awarded on indemnity basis against Mr Goldkorn and Kazu 1, joint and several.
Legal Topics
Party Substitution, Abuse of Process, Costs
Civil Procedure Party Substitution Abuse of Process Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 8 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 / 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 for substitution constitutes an abuse of process
  3. 3 Appropriate basis for costs assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for substitution is refused as an exercise of the court's discretion due to delay and conduct, and independently as an abuse of process because the claim should have been raised earlier, causing prejudice to MPA.

Court Disposition

Application refused; 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 indemnity basis against Mr Goldkorn and Kazu 1, joint and several.