King & Ors v Stiefel & Ors [2023] EWHC 453 (Comm) (02 March 2023)

King & Ors v Stiefel & Ors [2023] EWHC 453 (Comm) (02 March 2023)

The wasted costs applications should not proceed to Stage 2 because the issues raised are too complex and factually disputed to be resolved by a summary procedure, and the requirements for a summary wasted costs determination are not met. The application would result in disproportionate satellite litigation contrary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 453 (Comm)
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 (commercial Court) / Stage 1 Hearing (whether to Proceed to Stage 2)
Outcome
Wasted costs applications dismissed at Stage 1; applications not to proceed to Stage 2.
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Orders, Abuse of Process, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Legal Representatives' Duties, Pre Action Protocol Compliance
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Wasted Costs Orders Abuse of Process Summary Judgment Strike Out Legal Representatives' Duties +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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 (commercial Court) / Stage 1 Hearing (whether to Proceed to Stage 2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wasted costs applications against the claimants' former legal representatives should proceed to Stage 2
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the legal representatives was improper, unreasonable, or negligent under CPR PD 46 and Senior Courts Act 1981 s.51
  3. 3 Whether the wasted costs application can be determined by a summary procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The wasted costs applications should not proceed to Stage 2 because the issues raised are too complex and factually disputed to be resolved by a summary procedure, and the requirements for a summary wasted costs determination are not met. The application would result in disproportionate satellite litigation contrary to established principles.

Court Disposition

Wasted costs applications dismissed at Stage 1; applications not to proceed to Stage 2.

Orders

  • Wasted costs applications against Christopher Newman and Metis Law dismissed.
  • No order for wasted costs to proceed to Stage 2.