Airey v Cordell & Ors [2007] EWHC 346 (Ch) (27 February 2007)

Airey v Cordell & Ors [2007] EWHC 346 (Ch) (27 February 2007)

The claimant was justified in bringing the derivative action and is entitled to costs of the application up to 24 August 2006 against the first to third defendants, and to the costs of the action (less any already recovered) against the fifth and sixth defendants. Interim payments on account are appropriate given the sums claimed and the stage of proceedings.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 346 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Russell Robert Airey; Defendant: Michael Cordell; Defendant: Richard Taffinder; Defendant: Ian George; Defendant: E-Plate Limited; Defendant: Hills Numberplate Holdings PLC; Defendant: Hills Numberplates Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Derivative Action / Post Judgment, Costs Determination Following Settlement
Outcome
Costs awarded as specified; interim payments ordered.
Legal Topics
Derivative Actions, Costs Orders, Consent Orders, Corporate Governance
Company Law Civil Procedure Derivative Actions Costs Orders Consent Orders Corporate Governance

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Russell Robert Airey

Claimant

Michael Cordell

Defendant

Richard Taffinder

Defendant

Ian George

Defendant

E-Plate Limited

Defendant

Hills Numberplate Holdings PLC

Defendant

Hills Numberplates Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Action / Post Judgment, Costs Determination Following Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted costs of the application to continue as a derivative action
  2. 2 Allocation of costs following settlement of a derivative action
  3. 3 Entitlement to interim payment on account of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was justified in bringing the derivative action and is entitled to costs of the application up to 24 August 2006 against the first to third defendants, and to the costs of the action (less any already recovered) against the fifth and sixth defendants. Interim payments on account are appropriate given the sums claimed and the stage of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded as specified; interim payments ordered.

Orders

  • First, second and third defendants to pay claimant's costs of the application to continue as a derivative action up to and including 24 August 2006, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
  • Fifth and sixth defendants to pay claimant's costs of the action (including the application costs not recovered from the first to third defendants), assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.