Boyd & Hutchinson (a firm) v Foenander

Boyd & Hutchinson (a firm) v Foenander

The compromise agreement of 22nd November 1999 did not discharge the appellant's liability for the taxed costs of £5,333.57, as those costs were not within the scope of the agreement, which was limited to liabilities secured by the charging order of 17th December 1997. The appellant, being bankrupt, had no standing to pursue the appeal, and an adjournment would serve no purpose as the appeal had no prospect of success.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Boyd & Hutchinson (A Firm); Defendant/appellant: Johan Michael Richard Foenander
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standing of Bankrupt Litigant, Interpretation of Compromise Agreements, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Contract Standing of Bankrupt Litigant Interpretation of Compromise Agreements Enforcement of Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boyd & Hutchinson (A Firm)

Claimant/respondent

Johan Michael Richard Foenander

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's liability to pay taxed costs was discharged by a compromise agreement dated 22nd November 1999
  2. 2 Whether the appellant, as a bankrupt, has standing to pursue the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The compromise agreement of 22nd November 1999 did not discharge the appellant's liability for the taxed costs of £5,333.57, as those costs were not within the scope of the agreement, which was limited to liabilities secured by the charging order of 17th December 1997. The appellant, being bankrupt, had no standing to pursue the appeal, and an adjournment would serve no purpose as the appeal had no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis
  • Application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused