IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Ltd v Metcalfe & Ors

IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Ltd v Metcalfe & Ors

The court found that the absence of Mr Metcalfe's formal appointment as a representative beneficiary did not justify discharging the costs order, as his role was to protect the interests of the class and the jurisdiction to make such an order existed under section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981. The application to discharge the costs order was dismissed.

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
Civil / Ruling on Application to Discharge or Cap Costs Order
Outcome
Application to discharge costs order dismissed; guidance given on permissible representation at trial.
Legal Topics
Prospective Costs Orders, Representation Orders, Trustee Litigation, Beneficiary Representation
Trusts Pensions Civil Procedure Prospective Costs Orders Representation Orders Trustee Litigation Beneficiary Representation

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 4 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

Civil / Ruling on 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

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the absence of Mr Metcalfe's formal appointment as a representative beneficiary did not justify discharging the costs order, as his role was to protect the interests of the class and the jurisdiction to make such an order existed under section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981. The application to discharge the costs order was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge costs order dismissed; guidance given on permissible representation at trial.

Orders

  • Costs order in favour of Mr Metcalfe in Consent Order remains in force.
  • Mr Metcalfe entitled to representation by Mr Stallworthy or Mr Tennet with junior solicitor; attendance of two counsel permitted subject to justification.