Centrehigh Ltd v Kare Amen & Ors

Centrehigh Ltd v Kare Amen & Ors

The application for cross-examination was refused because the case did not present features justifying departure from the summary procedure typical of s.51 applications. The claimants had already received extensive disclosure, including privileged documents, and sought to cross-examine all eight witnesses on a wide range of issues, effectively seeking a full trial. The policy underlying s.51 applications is to avoid satellite litigation and to resolve matters summarily unless fairness requires otherwise, which was not established here.

Parties
Claimant: Centrehigh Limited; Fourth Defendant: Joint Funding Partners Limited; Fifth Defendant: Telstar Music Group Limited; Defendants: Karen Amen & Ors.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Review; Application for Permission to Cross Examine Witnesses in Third Party Costs Order Proceedings
Outcome
Application for permission to cross-examine defendants’ witnesses dismissed.
Legal Topics
Third Party Costs Orders, Section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981, Summary Procedure, Cross Examination in Costs Proceedings
Civil Procedure Costs Third Party Costs Orders Section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981 Summary Procedure Cross Examination in Costs Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Centrehigh Limited

Claimant

Joint Funding Partners Limited

Fourth Defendant

Telstar Music Group Limited

Fifth Defendant

Karen Amen & Ors.

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Review; Application for Permission to Cross Examine Witnesses in Third Party Costs Order Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants should be permitted to cross-examine the defendants’ witnesses in a third party costs order application under s.51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981
  2. 2 Appropriate procedure for determination of third party costs order applications

Ratio Decidendi

The application for cross-examination was refused because the case did not present features justifying departure from the summary procedure typical of s.51 applications. The claimants had already received extensive disclosure, including privileged documents, and sought to cross-examine all eight witnesses on a wide range of issues, effectively seeking a full trial. The policy underlying s.51 applications is to avoid satellite litigation and to resolve matters summarily unless fairness requires otherwise, which was not established here.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to cross-examine defendants’ witnesses dismissed.

Orders

  • Claimants permitted to serve a witness summary in relation to Mr. Dixon.
  • Time for further evidence by claimants extended to 4.30pm on 11th March 2013.