Raja v Van Hoogstraten

Despite Tombstone's partial success on some issues, the action failed overall. The court, considering conduct and issues raised, exercised discretion to order Tombstone to pay 60% of defendants' costs, assessed on the standard basis.

Parties: Claimant: Asgar Sabir Raja (representing the estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja); Defendant: Nicholas van Hoogstraten; Intervenor: Tombstone Limited; Additional Defendant: Healys (a firm)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 09 November 2007
Procedural Posture: Civil / Post Trial Costs Ruling
Outcome: Tombstone to pay 60% of defendants' costs, assessed on the standard basis.
Legal Topics: Costs, Trespass, Conversion, Abuse of Process, Sequestration

Civil Procedure Tort Costs Trespass Conversion Abuse of Process Sequestration

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Asgar Sabir Raja (representing the estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja)

Claimant

Nicholas van Hoogstraten

Defendant

Tombstone Limited

Intervenor

Healys (a firm)

Additional Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Costs Ruling

Legal Issues

1 Are defendants liable for trespass and conversion by sequestrators appointed under a wrongful order?
2 Does the order provide defendants protection from liability?
3 Should the court exercise discretion to withdraw protection?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Tombstone to pay 60% of defendants' costs, assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Tombstone to pay 60% of the costs of the Solicitors and the Estate for the trial of Section G Claims, assessed on the standard basis.