MacKay & Ors v Ashwood Enterprises Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 959 (31 July 2013)

MacKay & Ors v Ashwood Enterprises Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 959 (31 July 2013)

The court had jurisdiction to make a final costs order on a without notice application, and the exercise of discretion was justified in the circumstances due to the defendants' conduct and unexplained delay in challenging the order; the liberty to apply extended to the costs order, but delay was a relevant factor in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 959
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Bruce Mackay; Claimant/respondent: Graham Bushby; Defendant/appellant: Ashwood Enterprises Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Thomas Bernard McFeely; Defendant/appellant: Conal Derek McFeely; Defendant: Noel McFeely; Defendant: Ciaran McFeely; Defendant: Steve Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Without Notice Applications, Receivership, Injunctions, Delay in Applications
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Orders Without Notice Applications Receivership Injunctions Delay in Applications

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Mackay

Claimant/respondent

Graham Bushby

Claimant/respondent

Ashwood Enterprises Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Thomas Bernard McFeely

Defendant/appellant

Conal Derek McFeely

Defendant/appellant

Noel McFeely

Defendant

Ciaran McFeely

Defendant

Steve Evans

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to make a final costs order on a without notice application.
  2. 2 Whether the exercise of discretion to make such an order was proper in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the liberty to apply extended to the costs order and if delay in applying was relevant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court had jurisdiction to make a final costs order on a without notice application, and the exercise of discretion was justified in the circumstances due to the defendants' conduct and unexplained delay in challenging the order; the liberty to apply extended to the costs order, but delay was a relevant factor in refusing relief.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed; costs order in First Order upheld; refusal to set aside or vary costs order affirmed.