McCallum-Toppin & Anor v Toppin & Ors

McCallum-Toppin & Anor v Toppin & Ors

The costs of expert evidence, though ruled inadmissible, were incurred in good faith as part of trial preparation and should not be excluded from the costs order. Minor conduct issues raised by respondents do not justify a percentage reduction in costs. Costs relating to the privilege issue are not to be excluded...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: Lucy Jane McCallum-Toppin; Petitioner: Julie Bryan; Respondent: Alistair Bruce McCallum-Toppin; Respondent: Allan Andrew McCallum-Toppin; Respondent: Bertha Anne McCallum-Toppin; Respondent: AMT Coffee Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Company/insolvency Petition / Post Judgment Consequential Matters and Costs
Outcome
Costs of expert evidence not excluded; no percentage reduction in costs; costs of privilege issue not excluded for first respondent; interim payments on account of costs and purchase price ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs, Expert Evidence, Shareholder Disputes, Remuneration, Privilege, Interim Payments
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Expert Evidence Shareholder Disputes Remuneration Privilege Interim Payments

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Lucy Jane McCallum-Toppin

Petitioner

Julie Bryan

Petitioner

Alistair Bruce McCallum-Toppin

Respondent

Allan Andrew McCallum-Toppin

Respondent

Bertha Anne McCallum-Toppin

Respondent

AMT Coffee Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company/insolvency Petition / Post Judgment Consequential Matters and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of expert evidence ruled inadmissible should be excluded from costs order
  2. 2 Whether percentage reduction in costs should be made for alleged conduct of petitioners
  3. 3 Whether costs relating to privilege issue should be excluded for first respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The costs of expert evidence, though ruled inadmissible, were incurred in good faith as part of trial preparation and should not be excluded from the costs order. Minor conduct issues raised by respondents do not justify a percentage reduction in costs. Costs relating to the privilege issue are not to be excluded for the first respondent. Interim payments on account of costs and purchase price are appropriate and should be ordered.

Court Disposition

Costs of expert evidence not excluded; no percentage reduction in costs; costs of privilege issue not excluded for first respondent; interim payments on account of costs and purchase price ordered.

Orders

  • Petitioners awarded costs including costs of expert evidence.
  • No percentage reduction in costs for petitioners' conduct.