Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Ors

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Ors

The Sinclair Defendants failed to pay costs orders totaling £1,173,111.53, provided insufficient evidence of impecuniosity, and have no or insufficient assets in the jurisdiction. There are no Article 6 ECHR implications. The only effective sanction is to debar them from defending the Max Action unless payment is made within 28 days. The disclosure application also succeeds as the Sinclair Defendants failed to exercise their liberty to apply under the previous order.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited; 1st Defendant: Thomas Ian Sinclair; 2nd Defendant: Sokol Holdings Inc.; 3rd Defendant: Eagle Point Investments Limited; 4th Defendant: The Butterfield Bank (Bahamas) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Ruling on Unless Order and Disclosure Application
Outcome
Unless order granted; disclosure order granted
Legal Topics
Unless Orders, Costs Enforcement, Disclosure Obligations, Abuse of Process, Impecuniosity, Equitable Set Off
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Arbitration Unless Orders Costs Enforcement Disclosure Obligations Abuse of Process Impecuniosity +1 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited

Claimant

Thomas Ian Sinclair

1st Defendant

Sokol Holdings Inc.

2nd Defendant

Eagle Point Investments Limited

3rd Defendant

The Butterfield Bank (Bahamas) Limited

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Ruling on Unless Order and Disclosure Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sinclair Defendants should be debarred from defending the Max Action for non-payment of costs orders
  2. 2 Whether disclosure should be ordered against the Sinclair Defendants as per previous court order

Ratio Decidendi

The Sinclair Defendants failed to pay costs orders totaling £1,173,111.53, provided insufficient evidence of impecuniosity, and have no or insufficient assets in the jurisdiction. There are no Article 6 ECHR implications. The only effective sanction is to debar them from defending the Max Action unless payment is made within 28 days. The disclosure application also succeeds as the Sinclair Defendants failed to exercise their liberty to apply under the previous order.

Court Disposition

Unless order granted; disclosure order granted

Orders

  • Unless the Sinclair Defendants pay £1,173,111.53 within 28 days, they are debarred from defending the Max Action.
  • Sinclair Defendants to make disclosure as per the Disclosure Schedule, with liberty to identify previously disclosed documents.