Popely v Ayton Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3217 (Ch) (15 December 2022)

Popely v Ayton Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3217 (Ch) (15 December 2022)

The County Court judge acted unlawfully by making serious adverse findings against Mr Popely, a non-party, without notice or opportunity to respond, thereby breaching Articles 6 and 8 ECHR and common law fairness. The findings were set aside and the non-party costs application dismissed. The judge should have recused himself from hearing the costs application due to apparent bias.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3217 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Ronald Albert Popely; First Respondent: Ayton Limited; Second Respondent: Alan Mosley (acting by the Official Receiver as his Trustee in Bankruptcy)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Non Party Costs Orders, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Recusal for Apparent Bias, Unfair Findings Against Non Parties
Civil Procedure Human Rights Costs Procedural Fairness Non Party Costs Orders Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Recusal for Apparent Bias +1 more

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Albert Popely

Appellant

Ayton Limited

First Respondent

Alan Mosley (acting by the Official Receiver as his Trustee in Bankruptcy)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the County Court judge acted unlawfully by making serious adverse findings against a non-party without notice or opportunity to respond
  2. 2 Whether the process infringed Article 6 and Article 8 ECHR and common law fairness
  3. 3 Whether the judge should have recused himself from hearing a non-party costs application based on his earlier findings

Ratio Decidendi

The County Court judge acted unlawfully by making serious adverse findings against Mr Popely, a non-party, without notice or opportunity to respond, thereby breaching Articles 6 and 8 ECHR and common law fairness. The findings were set aside and the non-party costs application dismissed. The judge should have recused himself from hearing the costs application due to apparent bias.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • All adverse findings against Mr Popely in the Main Judgment are set aside and treated as if never made.
  • The order joining Mr Popely to the proceedings for the purposes of the non-party costs application is set aside.