Anthony Douglas King & Ors. v Barry Stiefel & Ors.

Anthony Douglas King & Ors. v Barry Stiefel & Ors.

The wasted costs applications were dismissed because they were wholly unsuitable for summary determination due to complexity, volume of allegations, causation and privilege issues, and because the evidence did not show that the legal representatives acted improperly, unreasonably, or negligently; nor was it likely that a wasted costs order would be made on the basis of the existing materials.

Parties
Claimant: Anthony Douglas King; Claimant: James Patrick King; Claimant: Susan May King; Defendant/applicant: Barry Stiefel; Defendant/applicant: Robin Fisher; Defendant/applicant: Peter Swain; Defendant/applicant: Primekings Holding Limited; Defendant/applicant: Clare Victoria Toomer; Defendant/applicant: Roderick John Cowper; Defendant/applicant: Peter David Levinger; Defendant/applicant: Teacher Stern LLP; Defendant/applicant: Jacob Isaac Rabinowicz; Respondent: Christopher Newman; Respondent: Metis Law
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Wasted Costs Application / Stage 1 (threshold/summary Determination)
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Orders, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process, Strike Out, Legal Professional Privilege, CPR 38.7
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Wasted Costs Orders Summary Judgment Abuse of Process Strike Out Legal Professional Privilege +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Douglas King

Claimant

James Patrick King

Claimant

Susan May King

Claimant

Barry Stiefel

Defendant/applicant

Robin Fisher

Defendant/applicant

Peter Swain

Defendant/applicant

Primekings Holding Limited

Defendant/applicant

Clare Victoria Toomer

Defendant/applicant

Roderick John Cowper

Defendant/applicant

Peter David Levinger

Defendant/applicant

Teacher Stern LLP

Defendant/applicant

Jacob Isaac Rabinowicz

Defendant/applicant

Christopher Newman

Respondent

Metis Law

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Wasted Costs Application / Stage 1 (threshold/summary Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether wasted costs applications should proceed to Stage 2
  2. 2 Whether conduct of legal representatives was improper, unreasonable, or negligent
  3. 3 Whether the case was suitable for summary determination

Ratio Decidendi

The wasted costs applications were dismissed because they were wholly unsuitable for summary determination due to complexity, volume of allegations, causation and privilege issues, and because the evidence did not show that the legal representatives acted improperly, unreasonably, or negligently; nor was it likely that a wasted costs order would be made on the basis of the existing materials.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Wasted costs applications against both Respondents are dismissed.
  • Applications do not proceed to Stage 2.