Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake & Anor v Geoffrey William Guy & Ors

Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake & Anor v Geoffrey William Guy & Ors

The court found that summary assessment was appropriate given the nature and scale of the application, the lack of material prejudice to the Brakes from the timing of the statement of costs, and the experience of the Brakes as litigants in person. The court reduced the costs claimed to £5,500, finding the time spent and hourly rates excessive without sufficient justification, but accepted the need for some senior input due to the novelty and complexity of the application.

Parties
Claimant: Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake; Claimant: Andrew Young Brake; Defendant: Geoffrey William Guy; Defendant: The Chedington Court Estate Limited; Defendant: Axnoller Events Limited; Third Party: James Hay Pension Trustees Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Assessment Following Application Under Regulation 7(2)(b) of the Debt Respite Scheme (breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (england and Wales) Regulations 2020
Outcome
Costs summarily assessed at £5,500 in favour of the Guy Parties against the Brakes. Decision on time to pay deferred pending further submissions.
Legal Topics
Summary Assessment of Costs, Debt Respite Scheme, Breathing Space Moratorium, Mental Health Crisis Moratorium, Third Party Debt Order
Civil Procedure Costs Summary Assessment of Costs Debt Respite Scheme Breathing Space Moratorium Mental Health Crisis Moratorium Third Party Debt Order

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake

Claimant

Andrew Young Brake

Claimant

Geoffrey William Guy

Defendant

The Chedington Court Estate Limited

Defendant

Axnoller Events Limited

Defendant

James Hay Pension Trustees Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Assessment Following Application Under Regulation 7(2)(b) of the Debt Respite Scheme (breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (england and Wales) Regulations 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be summarily assessed or subject to detailed assessment
  2. 2 Appropriate amount of costs to be awarded
  3. 3 Compliance with procedural rules for filing statement of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that summary assessment was appropriate given the nature and scale of the application, the lack of material prejudice to the Brakes from the timing of the statement of costs, and the experience of the Brakes as litigants in person. The court reduced the costs claimed to £5,500, finding the time spent and hourly rates excessive without sufficient justification, but accepted the need for some senior input due to the novelty and complexity of the application.

Court Disposition

Costs summarily assessed at £5,500 in favour of the Guy Parties against the Brakes. Decision on time to pay deferred pending further submissions.

Orders

  • The Brakes to pay the Guy Parties' costs of the application, summarily assessed at £5,500.
  • Parties to make further submissions on the question of time to pay.