Paul Lorimer-Wing v Idrees Hashmi

Paul Lorimer-Wing v Idrees Hashmi

The permission to appeal on liability was refused because none of the grounds had a real prospect of success or raised a compelling reason for appeal. The alleged reasonable offer was not pleaded, did not meet the requirements set out in O'Neill v Phillips, and could not defeat the finding of unfair prejudice. The costs appeal was dismissed because the trial judge exercised his discretion properly, considered the alleged offer, and was not obliged to reserve costs to the quantum trial. The respondent's comprehensive success at the liability stage justified the costs order.

Parties
Appellant: Paul Lorimer-Wing; Respondent: Idrees Hashmi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (unfair Prejudice Petition) / Appeal From Orders of Chief ICC Judge Briggs Dated 21 June 2023 and 20 July 2023; Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on all liability grounds; costs appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Shareholder Disputes, Directors' Removal, Costs Orders, Split Trial Procedure
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Shareholder Disputes Directors' Removal Costs Orders Split Trial Procedure

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

Parties

Paul Lorimer-Wing

Appellant

Idrees Hashmi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (unfair Prejudice Petition) / Appeal From Orders of Chief ICC Judge Briggs Dated 21 June 2023 and 20 July 2023; Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on liability findings of unfair prejudice
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in not considering an alleged reasonable offer as a defence to unfair prejudice
  3. 3 Whether the costs order should have been reserved to the quantum trial in light of a pre-action offer

Ratio Decidendi

The permission to appeal on liability was refused because none of the grounds had a real prospect of success or raised a compelling reason for appeal. The alleged reasonable offer was not pleaded, did not meet the requirements set out in O'Neill v Phillips, and could not defeat the finding of unfair prejudice. The costs appeal was dismissed because the trial judge exercised his discretion properly, considered the alleged offer, and was not obliged to reserve costs to the quantum trial. The respondent's comprehensive success at the liability stage justified the costs order.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on all liability grounds; costs appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal on liability (grounds 1-13) refused.
  • Costs appeal (ground 14) dismissed; costs order of 20 July 2023 upheld.