Amin v Amin

Amin v Amin

No order as to costs between Vatsal and Anju and Udi and Bhavini for the hearing on 28 May 2010, as both sides had partial success and failure, and the application could have been made earlier.

Parties
Claimant/petitioner: Vatsal Babubhai Amin; Claimant/petitioner: Anju Vatsal Amin; Defendant/respondent: Udhyam Babubhai Amin; Defendant: Rahulkumar J Desai; Defendant/respondent: Pushpaben Babubhai Amin; Defendant: Champaben Kantibhai Patel; Defendant: Manjulaben Bharatbhai Patel; Defendant: Sangitaben Vipinbhai Patel; Defendant: Bharatbhai J Patel; Defendant: Vipinbhai Patel; Defendant: Hasmukhbhai J Patel; Defendant: Induben H Patel; Defendant: Bakulkumar Harshadray Patel; Defendant: Nayana Bakul Patel; Defendant: Harshika Rahul Desai; Defendant: Swatiben B Patel; Defendant: Prashantbhai N Patel; Defendant: Bhavineshbhai N Patel; Defendant/respondent: Bhavini Udhyam Amin; Defendant: Bhavinbhai B Patel; Respondent: VU Chem Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (partnership/company) / Costs Ruling After Interlocutory Application
Outcome
No order as to costs between the principal parties for the application heard on 28 May 2010.
Legal Topics
Costs, Interim Payment, Stay of Proceedings, Section 42 Partnership Act 1890
Civil Procedure Partnership Law Costs Interim Payment Stay of Proceedings Section 42 Partnership Act 1890

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vatsal Babubhai Amin

Claimant/petitioner

Anju Vatsal Amin

Claimant/petitioner

Udhyam Babubhai Amin

Defendant/respondent

Rahulkumar J Desai

Defendant

Pushpaben Babubhai Amin

Defendant/respondent

Champaben Kantibhai Patel

Defendant

Manjulaben Bharatbhai Patel

Defendant

Sangitaben Vipinbhai Patel

Defendant

Bharatbhai J Patel

Defendant

Vipinbhai Patel

Defendant

Hasmukhbhai J Patel

Defendant

Induben H Patel

Defendant

Bakulkumar Harshadray Patel

Defendant

Nayana Bakul Patel

Defendant

Harshika Rahul Desai

Defendant

Swatiben B Patel

Defendant

Prashantbhai N Patel

Defendant

Bhavineshbhai N Patel

Defendant

Bhavini Udhyam Amin

Defendant/respondent

Bhavinbhai B Patel

Defendant

VU Chem Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (partnership/company) / Costs Ruling After Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following interlocutory application involving section 42 Partnership Act 1890, minor partners' costs, and interim payment/stay
  2. 2 Whether application for stay/interim payment should have been made earlier

Ratio Decidendi

No order as to costs between Vatsal and Anju and Udi and Bhavini for the hearing on 28 May 2010, as both sides had partial success and failure, and the application could have been made earlier.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs between the principal parties for the application heard on 28 May 2010.

Orders

  • Counsel to finalise and lodge the Minute of Order reflecting no order as to costs.