Simpson & Ors (t/a Harrow Solicitors and Advocates) v Godson & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1339 (04 November 2013)

Simpson & Ors (t/a Harrow Solicitors and Advocates) v Godson & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1339 (04 November 2013)

Mr Godson's defence lacked reality as he admitted forging cheques and failed to provide credible evidence that he acted solely on instructions or returned the money; summary judgment was appropriate. The costs order against Mrs Thirumahal was too broad as it included costs for claims not succeeded against her; she should only pay a proportion of the costs.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1339
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Gavyn Simpson, Elvin Blades, Ranjan Herath and Stephen Down (trading as Harrow Solicitors and Advocates); Defendant/applicant: Jude Darrell Godson; Defendant/applicant: Arulanantham Thirumahal; Defendant/applicant: Murugan Gopalan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Applications for Permission to Appeal And, in Mrs Thirumahal's Case, Appeal on Costs
Outcome
Mr Godson's and Mr Gopalan's applications for permission to appeal dismissed; Mrs Thirumahal granted permission to appeal on costs and her appeal allowed to the extent of reducing her costs liability.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Costs Orders, Knowing Assistance, Forgery, Theft by Employee, Counterclaims, Disclosure, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Employment Law Fraud Summary Judgment Costs Orders Knowing Assistance Forgery Theft by Employee +3 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gavyn Simpson, Elvin Blades, Ranjan Herath and Stephen Down (trading as Harrow Solicitors and Advocates)

Claimants/respondents

Jude Darrell Godson

Defendant/applicant

Arulanantham Thirumahal

Defendant/applicant

Murugan Gopalan

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Applications for Permission to Appeal And, in Mrs Thirumahal's Case, Appeal on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment against Mr Godson, Mrs Thirumahal, and Mr Gopalan was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Thirumahal should be liable for all costs of the application, including those relating to claims not succeeded against her
  3. 3 Whether Mr Godson's defence that he acted on instructions of Mr Blades had real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Godson's defence lacked reality as he admitted forging cheques and failed to provide credible evidence that he acted solely on instructions or returned the money; summary judgment was appropriate. The costs order against Mrs Thirumahal was too broad as it included costs for claims not succeeded against her; she should only pay a proportion of the costs.

Court Disposition

Mr Godson's and Mr Gopalan's applications for permission to appeal dismissed; Mrs Thirumahal granted permission to appeal on costs and her appeal allowed to the extent of reducing her costs liability.

Orders

  • Summary judgment against Mr Godson and Mr Gopalan stands.
  • Mrs Thirumahal to pay 25% of Harrow Solicitors' costs of the application against her; remaining costs to be costs in the case.