Lee v Futurist Developments Ltd

Lee v Futurist Developments Ltd

The order of Deputy District Judge Berkson debarring Mr. Lee from enforcing costs unless he paid the judgment debt was made without jurisdiction, was inappropriate, and should be set aside. There is no sufficient connection between the damages award and the issues-based costs order to justify equitable set-off. Mr. Lee is not entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment against him, as the amount he may recover by way of costs is unlikely to approach the judgment debt. Futurist is the substantially successful party on the applications, and Mr. Lee is to pay two-thirds of Futurist's costs, summarily assessed at £6,781.32.

Parties
Claimant / Part 20 Defendant: Jennifer Jean Lee; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Futurist Developments Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Derek Lee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Post Judgment Applications (stay of Execution, Set Aside Orders, Costs)
Outcome
Deputy District Judge Berkson's order set aside; application for stay of execution of judgment against Mr. Lee dismissed; hearings on 22 February and 29 March vacated; Mr. Lee to pay two-thirds of Futurist's costs, summarily assessed.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Set Off of Costs Against Damages, Summary Assessment of Costs, Jurisdiction of District Judge, Equitable Set Off
Civil Procedure Costs Enforcement of Judgments Stay of Execution Set Off of Costs Against Damages Summary Assessment of Costs Jurisdiction of District Judge Equitable Set Off

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

Parties

Jennifer Jean Lee

Claimant / Part 20 Defendant

Futurist Developments Limited

Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

Derek Lee

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Post Judgment Applications (stay of Execution, Set Aside Orders, Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of Deputy District Judge Berkson debarring Mr. Lee from enforcing costs unless he paid the judgment debt was valid and should stand
  2. 2 Whether there should be a stay of execution of the judgment against Mr. Lee pending assessment of costs
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Lee is entitled to set off his costs against the damages awarded to Futurist

Ratio Decidendi

The order of Deputy District Judge Berkson debarring Mr. Lee from enforcing costs unless he paid the judgment debt was made without jurisdiction, was inappropriate, and should be set aside. There is no sufficient connection between the damages award and the issues-based costs order to justify equitable set-off. Mr. Lee is not entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment against him, as the amount he may recover by way of costs is unlikely to approach the judgment debt. Futurist is the substantially successful party on the applications, and Mr. Lee is to pay two-thirds of Futurist's costs, summarily assessed at £6,781.32.

Court Disposition

Deputy District Judge Berkson's order set aside; application for stay of execution of judgment against Mr. Lee dismissed; hearings on 22 February and 29 March vacated; Mr. Lee to pay two-thirds of Futurist's costs, summarily assessed.

Orders

  • Order of Deputy District Judge Berkson dated 15 December 2010 set aside.
  • Application for stay of execution of judgment against Mr. Lee dismissed.