Edwards & Ors v Hammersley

Edwards & Ors v Hammersley

The review and wasted costs applications are dismissed because they do not disclose any change of circumstances, new material, or exceptional grounds as required under rule 12.59. The respondent is seeking to re-argue points already determined, which is not permitted under the review jurisdiction. The new evidence relied upon does not alter the position or justify review or variation of the original orders.

Parties
Applicant: Nicholas Guy Edwards; Applicant: David Philip Soden; Applicant: Neville Barry Kahn; Respondent: Michael R. Hammersley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Post Administration, Application for Review and Wasted Costs
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Administrators' Discharge, Review of Court Orders, Costs Orders, Wasted Costs, Insolvency Proceedings, US Bankruptcy Recognition
Insolvency Law Company Law Administrators' Discharge Review of Court Orders Costs Orders Wasted Costs Insolvency Proceedings US Bankruptcy Recognition

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

Parties

Nicholas Guy Edwards

Applicant

David Philip Soden

Applicant

Neville Barry Kahn

Applicant

Michael R. Hammersley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application / Post Administration, Application for Review and Wasted Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application under Insolvency Rule 12.59 meets the threshold for reconsideration of the discharge and costs orders
  2. 2 Whether the wasted costs application discloses grounds for variation of the costs order
  3. 3 Whether new evidence or arguments justify review or variation of the original orders

Ratio Decidendi

The review and wasted costs applications are dismissed because they do not disclose any change of circumstances, new material, or exceptional grounds as required under rule 12.59. The respondent is seeking to re-argue points already determined, which is not permitted under the review jurisdiction. The new evidence relied upon does not alter the position or justify review or variation of the original orders.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • The review application under rule 12.59 is dismissed.
  • The wasted costs application is dismissed.