Ashdown & Ors v Griffin & Ors

Ashdown & Ors v Griffin & Ors

The appellants were the successful parties because the petitioners failed to obtain any financial relief for their shares, and the offers made by appellants would have left petitioners better off. The judge erred in principle by treating petitioners as successful; costs should follow the event, and petitioners should pay appellants' costs.

Parties
Petitioner: David Ashdown; Petitioner: James Pugh; Petitioner: Alex Furness-Smith; Respondent: John Patrick Griffin; Respondent: Daryl Foster; Respondent: Peter Christopher Ingram; Respondent: Kieran Griffin; Respondent: Addbins Limited; Respondent: Liam Griffin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Costs Orders, Shareholder Disputes, Fiduciary Duties
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Costs Orders Shareholder Disputes Fiduciary Duties

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Ashdown

Petitioner

James Pugh

Petitioner

Alex Furness-Smith

Petitioner

John Patrick Griffin

Respondent

Daryl Foster

Respondent

Peter Christopher Ingram

Respondent

Kieran Griffin

Respondent

Addbins Limited

Respondent

Liam Griffin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioners were the 'successful' parties for costs purposes
  2. 2 Appropriate costs order in light of outcome and offers
  3. 3 Effect of offers to settle on costs determination

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were the successful parties because the petitioners failed to obtain any financial relief for their shares, and the offers made by appellants would have left petitioners better off. The judge erred in principle by treating petitioners as successful; costs should follow the event, and petitioners should pay appellants' costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Petitioners to pay appellants' costs of the proceedings, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed