Smurthwaite v Simpson-Smith & Anor

Smurthwaite v Simpson-Smith & Anor

The order for costs against Mr Smurthwaite for the specific disclosure application was made on a false basis due to subsequent disclosure of relevant documents; it should be set aside and replaced with no order as to costs. Mr Mond's conduct in admitting Miss Williams' claim as a debt for voting was below the standard expected of a reasonable insolvency practitioner, justifying a personal costs order. The application to review the disclosure order was misconceived as all relevant documents had been disclosed by affidavit.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Jolyon Smurthwaite; Defendant/respondent: Robin Simpson-Smith; Defendant/respondent: David Emmanuel Merton Mond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Consolidated Appeals From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal on B5/2005/0033 allowed in part; appeals on B5/2005/0541 and B5/2005/1878 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Individual Voluntary Arrangement, Costs, Specific Disclosure, Creditors' Meeting, Bankruptcy
Insolvency Civil Procedure Individual Voluntary Arrangement Costs Specific Disclosure Creditors' Meeting Bankruptcy

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jolyon Smurthwaite

Claimant/appellant

Robin Simpson-Smith

Defendant/respondent

David Emmanuel Merton Mond

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Consolidated Appeals From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for costs against Mr Smurthwaite for the failed specific disclosure application should stand in light of later disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of Mr Mond as insolvency practitioner in admitting Miss Williams' claim was below professional standards
  3. 3 Whether the application to review the specific disclosure order under section 375 Insolvency Act 1986 was misconceived

Ratio Decidendi

The order for costs against Mr Smurthwaite for the specific disclosure application was made on a false basis due to subsequent disclosure of relevant documents; it should be set aside and replaced with no order as to costs. Mr Mond's conduct in admitting Miss Williams' claim as a debt for voting was below the standard expected of a reasonable insolvency practitioner, justifying a personal costs order. The application to review the disclosure order was misconceived as all relevant documents had been disclosed by affidavit.

Court Disposition

Appeal on B5/2005/0033 allowed in part; appeals on B5/2005/0541 and B5/2005/1878 dismissed.

Orders

  • Order for costs against Mr Smurthwaite (paragraph 8 of 13 December 2004 order) set aside; no order as to costs for that application.
  • Personal costs order against Mr Mond for 50% of Mr Smurthwaite’s costs on issues where he succeeded upheld.