Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Saeed Bin Shakhboot Al Nehayan v Kent (aka John Kent)

Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Saeed Bin Shakhboot Al Nehayan v Kent (aka John Kent)

Mr Kent was the overall successful party; costs awarded to him subject to a 30% reduction for issues lost. Each party to bear its own costs of expert accounting evidence. Indemnity costs not justified. Permission to appeal refused as grounds were either academic, had no real prospect of success, or were not open to the applicant.

Parties
Claimant: Sheikh Tahnoon bin Saeed bin Shakhboot Al Nehayan; Defendant: Ioannis Kent (aka John Kent)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment (costs and Permission to Appeal)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim partly succeeded; costs awarded to defendant with reduction; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Vicarious Liability, Intimidation, Good Faith, Fiduciary Duties, Appeal Procedure
Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Costs Vicarious Liability Intimidation Good Faith Fiduciary Duties +1 more

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheikh Tahnoon bin Saeed bin Shakhboot Al Nehayan

Claimant

Ioannis Kent (aka John Kent)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment (costs and Permission to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs and basis of assessment
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded
  3. 3 Permission to appeal on findings of good faith, intimidation, vicarious liability, and damages

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Kent was the overall successful party; costs awarded to him subject to a 30% reduction for issues lost. Each party to bear its own costs of expert accounting evidence. Indemnity costs not justified. Permission to appeal refused as grounds were either academic, had no real prospect of success, or were not open to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim partly succeeded; costs awarded to defendant with reduction; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Sheikh Tahnoon to pay 70% of Mr Kent’s costs of the proceedings (excluding expert evidence costs).
  • Each party to bear its own costs of obtaining expert accounting evidence.