Paul Andrew Whittaker v Bertha UK Limited

Paul Andrew Whittaker v Bertha UK Limited

All applications for permission to appeal, stay of execution, set aside, and contempt were refused as totally without merit. Applicant failed to demonstrate real prospect of success, failed to provide cogent evidence of financial hardship, and failed to show procedural irregularity sufficient to justify setting aside or staying orders. Summary assessment of costs was not unjust despite failure to serve Statement of Costs. Unless orders and costs orders were appropriate given repeated non-compliance and proximity to trial.

Parties
Claimant: Paul Andrew Whittaker; Defendant: Bertha UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Multiple Applications Including Permission to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Set Aside, and Contempt
Outcome
All applications dismissed as totally without merit except first PTA and first Stay Application, which may be renewed orally.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Case Management, Costs Orders, Stay of Execution, Contempt of Court, Summary Assessment, Shareholder Agreements, Laches, Limitation, Waiver, Estoppel
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Disclosure Case Management Costs Orders Stay of Execution Contempt of Court +6 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 8 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Andrew Whittaker

Claimant

Bertha UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Multiple Applications Including Permission to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Set Aside, and Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against case management and costs orders
  2. 2 Whether stay of execution should be granted pending appeal
  3. 3 Whether summary assessment of costs was unjust due to failure to serve Statement of Costs

Ratio Decidendi

All applications for permission to appeal, stay of execution, set aside, and contempt were refused as totally without merit. Applicant failed to demonstrate real prospect of success, failed to provide cogent evidence of financial hardship, and failed to show procedural irregularity sufficient to justify setting aside or staying orders. Summary assessment of costs was not unjust despite failure to serve Statement of Costs. Unless orders and costs orders were appropriate given repeated non-compliance and proximity to trial.

Court Disposition

All applications dismissed as totally without merit except first PTA and first Stay Application, which may be renewed orally.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused for all applications except first PTA and first Stay Application, which may be renewed orally.
  • No stay of execution granted.