Seekings & Ors v Moores & Ors

Seekings & Ors v Moores & Ors

The Defendant failed to demonstrate any significant developments in the litigation that would warrant revision of the costs budget; most increased costs were due to matters that should have been reasonably anticipated or resulted from the Defendant's own procedural failures.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Seekings; Claimant: Materials Limited; Claimant: Aggregates Limited; Claimant: Welbeck LLP; Claimant: Edward Michael Seekings; Claimant: Matrix Materials Limited; Claimant: Tetron; Defendant/petitioner: Alan Moores; Defendant: Nicholas John Cook; Defendant: Susan Moores; Defendant: Matrix Materials 2017 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Revise Costs Budget
Outcome
Application to revise costs budget refused.
Legal Topics
Costs Management, Revision of Costs Budget, Significant Developments, Case Management, Unfair Prejudice Petition
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Costs Management Revision of Costs Budget Significant Developments Case Management Unfair Prejudice Petition

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

Parties

Michael Seekings

Claimant

Materials Limited

Claimant

Aggregates Limited

Claimant

Welbeck LLP

Claimant

Edward Michael Seekings

Claimant

Matrix Materials Limited

Claimant

Tetron

Claimant

Alan Moores

Defendant/petitioner

Nicholas John Cook

Defendant

Susan Moores

Defendant

Matrix Materials 2017 Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Revise Costs Budget

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to revise a costs budget retrospectively
  2. 2 Whether significant developments warrant revision of the costs budget

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to demonstrate any significant developments in the litigation that would warrant revision of the costs budget; most increased costs were due to matters that should have been reasonably anticipated or resulted from the Defendant's own procedural failures.

Court Disposition

Application to revise costs budget refused.

Orders

  • Defendant's application to revise costs budget is refused.
  • Order made in terms agreed by parties regarding costs of the application.