IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Ltd v Metcalfe & Ors [2012] EWHC 125 (Ch) (01 February 2012)

IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Ltd v Metcalfe & Ors [2012] EWHC 125 (Ch) (01 February 2012)

The court has jurisdiction to make a prospective costs order in favour of Mr Metcalfe even though he is not formally appointed as a representative beneficiary under CPR 19.7; IBM failed to demonstrate a change of circumstances justifying discharge of the order, and the technical distinction between representative and non-representative status does not affect the substance of Mr Metcalfe's monitoring and supplementing role under the Consent Order.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 125 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Limited; Defendant: George Metcalfe; Defendant: IBM United Kingdom Holdings Limited; Defendant: IBM United Kingdom Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Beddoe Application (trust Litigation) / Application to Discharge or Cap Costs Order
Outcome
Application to discharge costs order dismissed; no immediate costs cap imposed.
Legal Topics
Prospective Costs Orders, Representation Orders, Trustee Litigation, Costs Capping
Trusts Pensions Civil Procedure Prospective Costs Orders Representation Orders Trustee Litigation Costs Capping

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Limited

Claimant

George Metcalfe

Defendant

IBM United Kingdom Holdings Limited

Defendant

IBM United Kingdom Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Beddoe Application (trust Litigation) / Application to Discharge or Cap Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order in favour of Mr Metcalfe should be discharged due to lack of representative status
  2. 2 Whether Mr Metcalfe's costs should be capped
  3. 3 Jurisdiction to make prospective costs orders for non-representative beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to make a prospective costs order in favour of Mr Metcalfe even though he is not formally appointed as a representative beneficiary under CPR 19.7; IBM failed to demonstrate a change of circumstances justifying discharge of the order, and the technical distinction between representative and non-representative status does not affect the substance of Mr Metcalfe's monitoring and supplementing role under the Consent Order.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge costs order dismissed; no immediate costs cap imposed.

Orders

  • Mr Metcalfe remains entitled to costs as per Consent Order; representation at trial may include senior counsel subject to justification; IBM may apply for financial cap if desired.