Raja v Van Hoogstraten

Raja v Van Hoogstraten

The appellant, having succeeded in the appeals, is entitled to his costs both in the Court of Appeal and below, to be paid forthwith, with an interim payment of £90,000 ordered. There is no reason to depart from the usual order for costs or to defer payment, as the appeal turned on discrete procedural issues unrelated to the underlying abuse of process allegations. The freezing order provides adequate protection against dissipation of assets.

Parties
Claimant: Asgar Sabir Raja (representing the estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja); Appellant/defendant: Nicholas Van Hoogstraten; Sequestrator: Sarah Dayman; Sequestrator: Malcolm Cohen; Sequestrator: Anthony Supperstone; Sequestrator: Raymond Hocking; Proposed Intervenor: Tombstone Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Post Appeal Costs and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs awarded to appellant; interim payment ordered; no further order on Tombstone's intervention appeal.
Legal Topics
Costs, Sequestration, Intervention, Abuse of Process, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Sequestration Intervention Abuse of Process Freezing Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asgar Sabir Raja (representing the estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja)

Claimant

Nicholas Van Hoogstraten

Appellant/defendant

Sarah Dayman

Sequestrator

Malcolm Cohen

Sequestrator

Anthony Supperstone

Sequestrator

Raymond Hocking

Sequestrator

Tombstone Limited

Proposed Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Appeal Costs and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the successful appellant is entitled to costs of the appeal and proceedings below
  2. 2 Whether costs should be paid forthwith or deferred until final determination of the action
  3. 3 Whether an interim payment on account of costs should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, having succeeded in the appeals, is entitled to his costs both in the Court of Appeal and below, to be paid forthwith, with an interim payment of £90,000 ordered. There is no reason to depart from the usual order for costs or to defer payment, as the appeal turned on discrete procedural issues unrelated to the underlying abuse of process allegations. The freezing order provides adequate protection against dissipation of assets.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs awarded to appellant; interim payment ordered; no further order on Tombstone's intervention appeal.

Orders

  • Appellant awarded costs of the appeals and proceedings below
  • Costs to be paid forthwith