F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy & Anor [2011] EWHC 2807 (Ch) (28 October 2011)

F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy & Anor [2011] EWHC 2807 (Ch) (28 October 2011)

The Defendants were the overall successful parties, having secured payment for their interests in the LLP, but failed on certain substantial monetary claims (the mis-selling and liquidation cases). A broad-brush costs order is appropriate, with F&C to pay 70% of the Defendants' costs, reflecting both the Defendants'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2807 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant/cross Petitioner: F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant/petitioner/respondent: Francois Barthelemy; Defendant/part 20 Claimant/petitioner/respondent: Anthony Culligan; Respondent: F&C Partners LLP; Respondent: F&C Asset Management plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial/company Law Costs Ruling / Post Judgment (costs and Interest Determination)
Outcome
Costs order in favour of Defendants (Barthelemy and Culligan) against F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Limited; F&C to pay 70% of Defendants' costs of the Part 7 proceedings, the Petition, and the Cross-Petition.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Unfair Prejudice, Put Option Notices, Interest on Judgment Sums, Settlement Offers, Civil Procedure Rules
Company Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Orders Unfair Prejudice Put Option Notices Interest on Judgment Sums Settlement Offers +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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant/cross Petitioner

Francois Barthelemy

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/petitioner/respondent

Anthony Culligan

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/petitioner/respondent

F&C Partners LLP

Respondent

F&C Asset Management plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial/company Law Costs Ruling / Post Judgment (costs and Interest Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What costs orders should be made following the main judgment?
  2. 2 What interest should be paid on the principal sums payable to the Defendants?
  3. 3 What interest should be paid to the Defendants for legal expenses incurred?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants were the overall successful parties, having secured payment for their interests in the LLP, but failed on certain substantial monetary claims (the mis-selling and liquidation cases). A broad-brush costs order is appropriate, with F&C to pay 70% of the Defendants' costs, reflecting both the Defendants' overall success and their failure on significant issues. The Defendants' settlement offers, though not formal Part 36 offers, were reasonable and should have been accepted by F&C, justifying a costs order in their favour but not on the indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Costs order in favour of Defendants (Barthelemy and Culligan) against F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Limited; F&C to pay 70% of Defendants' costs of the Part 7 proceedings, the Petition, and the Cross-Petition.

Orders

  • F&C to pay 70% of Defendants' costs on the standard basis.
  • Interest to be determined on principal sums and legal expenses as per further directions.