Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills & Ors

Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills & Ors

There were no exceptional circumstances, impropriety, or unreasonableness in the conduct of the receivers or bank. The receivers acted as agents for the company, which was solely responsible for their acts. Mr Mills could have protected himself by seeking security for costs. The receivers and bank were not the real parties to the litigation, and justice did not require a third party costs order against them.

Parties
Claimant: Dolphin Quays Developments Limited (In Administrative and Fixed Charge Receivership); Defendant: Peter Mills; Defendant: Robert William Birchall; Defendant: Barry Gordon Gilbertson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Third Party Costs Order Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Costs Orders, Receivership, Agency, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Insolvency Property Law Third Party Costs Orders Receivership Agency Security for Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dolphin Quays Developments Limited (In Administrative and Fixed Charge Receivership)

Claimant

Peter Mills

Defendant

Robert William Birchall

Defendant

Barry Gordon Gilbertson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Third Party Costs Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether receivers should be ordered to pay costs under s.51 Supreme Court Act 1981 for unsuccessful claim brought by company in receivership
  2. 2 Whether receivers or bank were the 'real party' to the litigation
  3. 3 Whether absence of impropriety or exceptional circumstances bars a third party costs order

Ratio Decidendi

There were no exceptional circumstances, impropriety, or unreasonableness in the conduct of the receivers or bank. The receivers acted as agents for the company, which was solely responsible for their acts. Mr Mills could have protected himself by seeking security for costs. The receivers and bank were not the real parties to the litigation, and justice did not require a third party costs order against them.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs against receivers
  • Mr Mills' application for costs against receivers is refused