El Bishlawi & Anor v Minrealm Ltd & Ors (Rev 1) [2010] EWCA Civ 780 (25 May 2010)

El Bishlawi & Anor v Minrealm Ltd & Ors (Rev 1) [2010] EWCA Civ 780 (25 May 2010)

The judge erred in defaulting to no order as to costs where the appellants had a strong case and substantive relief was granted by consent; the proper order was to award the appellants their costs up to the end of 2007, with no order for costs thereafter, as further litigation achieved nothing substantive beyond what was offered in 2007.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 780
Parties
Appellants: El Bishlawi and another; Respondents: Minrealm Limited and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Chancery Division, Costs Order Following Settlement of Unfair Prejudice Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice Petition, Costs Orders, Shareholder Disputes, Section 994 Companies Act 2006, Section 459 Companies Act 1985
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Petition Costs Orders Shareholder Disputes Section 994 Companies Act 2006 Section 459 Companies Act 1985

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

El Bishlawi and another

Appellants

Minrealm Limited and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Chancery Division, Costs Order Following Settlement of Unfair Prejudice Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making no order as to costs after settlement of an unfair prejudice petition under Companies Act 1985 s.459 / Companies Act 2006 s.994
  2. 2 Whether the appellants should have been awarded their costs of the consolidated petition

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in defaulting to no order as to costs where the appellants had a strong case and substantive relief was granted by consent; the proper order was to award the appellants their costs up to the end of 2007, with no order for costs thereafter, as further litigation achieved nothing substantive beyond what was offered in 2007.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order of the judge set aside
  • Appellants awarded their costs of the consolidated petition up to the end of 2007