Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills & Ors [2007] EWHC 1180 (Ch) (17 May 2007)

Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills & Ors [2007] EWHC 1180 (Ch) (17 May 2007)

The application for a third party costs order against the receivers is dismissed because the receivers acted as agents for the company, were not the real parties to the litigation, did not fund or benefit from the proceedings in a relevant sense, and there were no exceptional circumstances or impropriety. The proper remedy for Mr Mills was to seek security for costs, which he failed to do.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1180 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Dolphin Quays Developments Limited (In Administrative and Fixed Charge Receivership); Defendant (applicant): Peter Mills; Defendant (receiver/respondent): Robert William Birchall; Defendant (receiver/respondent): Barry Gordon Gilbertson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Third Party Costs Order / Post Trial Application Following Dismissal of Main Claim
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Costs Orders, Receivership, Agency, Security for Costs, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Insolvency Property Law Third Party Costs Orders Receivership Agency Security for Costs Breach of Contract

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

Parties

Dolphin Quays Developments Limited (In Administrative and Fixed Charge Receivership)

Claimant

Peter Mills

Defendant (applicant)

Robert William Birchall

Defendant (receiver/respondent)

Barry Gordon Gilbertson

Defendant (receiver/respondent)

Procedural Posture

Application for Third Party Costs Order / Post Trial Application Following Dismissal of Main Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether receivers should be ordered to pay the defendant's costs under s.51 Supreme Court Act 1981 after unsuccessful claim by company in receivership
  2. 2 Whether the receivers or the bank were the 'real party' to the litigation justifying a third party costs order
  3. 3 Whether absence of impropriety or exceptional circumstances precludes such an order

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a third party costs order against the receivers is dismissed because the receivers acted as agents for the company, were not the real parties to the litigation, did not fund or benefit from the proceedings in a relevant sense, and there were no exceptional circumstances or impropriety. The proper remedy for Mr Mills was to seek security for costs, which he failed to do.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed