Sheinberg v Abdon & Ors

Sheinberg v Abdon & Ors

The defendants' unreasonable conduct in refusing to attend general meetings, failing to engage with the claimant's proposals, and delaying the resolution of company governance issues justified a departure from the default rule that the discontinuing claimant pays the defendants' costs. However, the claimant's own conduct and the nature of the relief sought did not justify awarding him costs. The appropriate order is no order as to costs.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Michael Sheinberg; Defendant: Ms Caroline Anna Abdon; Defendant: Ms Catharina Adriana Van Doorn; Defendant: Ms Jacqueline Margaret Redwood; Defendant: 50 Westbourne Gardens Residents Association Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (company Law Costs After Discontinuance) / Costs Ruling Following Discontinuance
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
Discontinuance of Proceedings, Costs Orders, Corporate Governance, General Meetings, Statutory Accounts
Company Law Civil Procedure Discontinuance of Proceedings Costs Orders Corporate Governance General Meetings Statutory Accounts

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

Parties

Mr Michael Sheinberg

Claimant

Ms Caroline Anna Abdon

Defendant

Ms Catharina Adriana Van Doorn

Defendant

Ms Jacqueline Margaret Redwood

Defendant

50 Westbourne Gardens Residents Association Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (company Law Costs After Discontinuance) / Costs Ruling Following Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should disapply the default rule under CPR 38.6 that a discontinuing claimant pays the defendants' costs
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' conduct justified a departure from the default costs rule

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' unreasonable conduct in refusing to attend general meetings, failing to engage with the claimant's proposals, and delaying the resolution of company governance issues justified a departure from the default rule that the discontinuing claimant pays the defendants' costs. However, the claimant's own conduct and the nature of the relief sought did not justify awarding him costs. The appropriate order is no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • No order as to costs following discontinuance of the claim