MARCO MAXIMILIAN ELSER v MARK SANDS

MARCO MAXIMILIAN ELSER v MARK SANDS

The First Respondent cannot be considered a successful party as against the Second and Fifth Respondents because there was no dispute between them. The CPR does not contemplate an award of costs between respondents in these circumstances, and to do so would be contrary to the principle of justice.

Parties
Applicant: Marco Maximilian Elser; First Respondent: Mark Sands; Second Respondent: Sean Bucknell; Third Respondent: Rory McCarthy; Fourth Respondent: Jamie Bond; Fifth Respondent: Chris Jonns; Sixth Respondent: OBN Investments Ltd; Seventh Respondent: Maxine Reid-Roberts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application (challenge to Chairman's Decision at Creditors' Meeting) / Costs Determination Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Application for costs by the First Respondent against the Second and Fifth Respondents refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Voluntary Arrangements, Creditors' Meetings, Court Discretion
Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Costs Voluntary Arrangements Creditors' Meetings Court Discretion

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marco Maximilian Elser

Applicant

Mark Sands

First Respondent

Sean Bucknell

Second Respondent

Rory McCarthy

Third Respondent

Jamie Bond

Fourth Respondent

Chris Jonns

Fifth Respondent

OBN Investments Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Maxine Reid-Roberts

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application (challenge to Chairman's Decision at Creditors' Meeting) / Costs Determination Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent (chairman) should be awarded costs against the Second and Fifth Respondents
  2. 2 Interpretation of CPR 44.2 discretion as to costs between respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The First Respondent cannot be considered a successful party as against the Second and Fifth Respondents because there was no dispute between them. The CPR does not contemplate an award of costs between respondents in these circumstances, and to do so would be contrary to the principle of justice.

Court Disposition

Application for costs by the First Respondent against the Second and Fifth Respondents refused

Orders

  • No order as to costs in favour of the First Respondent against the Second and Fifth Respondents