Raja v Van Hoogstraten [2004] EWCA Civ 1391 (30 September 2004)

Raja v Van Hoogstraten [2004] EWCA Civ 1391 (30 September 2004)

The successful appellant is entitled to costs of the appeal and below, to be paid forthwith, as there is no good reason to depart from the usual order; an interim payment of £90,000 is appropriate; no further order is made on the Tombstone Limited intervention appeal.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1391
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 Judgment, Costs and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of costs; costs awarded to appellant; interim payment ordered; no further order on Tombstone Limited's appeal.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Sequestration, Freezing Injunctions, Abuse of Process, Intervention Applications
Civil Procedure Costs Contempt of Court Costs Orders Sequestration Freezing Injunctions Abuse of Process Intervention Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 Judgment, 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 successful appellant is entitled to costs of the appeal and below, to be paid forthwith, as there is no good reason to depart from the usual order; an interim payment of £90,000 is appropriate; no further order is made on the Tombstone Limited intervention appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of costs; costs awarded to appellant; interim payment ordered; no further order on Tombstone Limited's appeal.

Orders

  • Appellant awarded costs of the appeal and below, to be paid forthwith.
  • Claimant to make interim payment of £90,000 to appellant within two months.