Templeton Insurance Ltd & Anor v Brunswick & Ors (No 4)

Templeton Insurance Ltd & Anor v Brunswick & Ors (No 4)

Given the claimants’ conduct, exaggeration, and failure on significant issues, and the necessity for the claimants to come to court to obtain redress, the just order is that D1 pays 5% of the claimants’ own costs of the action (excluding costs already subject to other orders and those attributable to the claim against D3), assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. As between the claimants and D3, there is to be no order as to costs, as D3’s role was consequential and his conduct did not justify a costs order against him.

Parties
Claimant: Templeton Insurance Limited; Claimant: Knox D’Arcy Operations Limited; Defendant: Ralph Stephen Brunswick; Defendant: Elizabeth Jane Brunswick; Defendant: Jonathan Ronald Booth (as trustee of the estate of Ralph Brunswick in bankruptcy)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/fiduciary/trusts) / Post Trial Costs Judgment
Outcome
Costs judgment; partial costs order for claimants against D1; no order as to costs against D3.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Constructive Trusts, Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Commercial Law Costs Orders Breach of Fiduciary Duty Fraud Constructive Trusts Assessment of 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Templeton Insurance Limited

Claimant

Knox D’Arcy Operations Limited

Claimant

Ralph Stephen Brunswick

Defendant

Elizabeth Jane Brunswick

Defendant

Jonathan Ronald Booth (as trustee of the estate of Ralph Brunswick in bankruptcy)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/fiduciary/trusts) / Post Trial Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate order for costs as between the claimants and the first and third defendants following findings of breach of fiduciary duty and fraud?
  2. 2 Should the claimants recover a proportion of their costs, and if so, what proportion, or should there be no order as to costs?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the claimants’ conduct, exaggeration, and failure on significant issues, and the necessity for the claimants to come to court to obtain redress, the just order is that D1 pays 5% of the claimants’ own costs of the action (excluding costs already subject to other orders and those attributable to the claim against D3), assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. As between the claimants and D3, there is to be no order as to costs, as D3’s role was consequential and his conduct did not justify a costs order against him.

Court Disposition

Costs judgment; partial costs order for claimants against D1; no order as to costs against D3.

Orders

  • D1 to pay 5% of the claimants’ own costs of the action (excluding costs already subject to other orders and those attributable to the claim against D3), assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
  • No interim payment on account of costs by D1 to the claimants.