Akwagbe v Ulrick (Re BL 634 Ltd) [2025] EWHC 2371 (Ch) (18 September 2025)

Akwagbe v Ulrick (Re BL 634 Ltd) [2025] EWHC 2371 (Ch) (18 September 2025)

The Applicant's conduct did not reach the threshold for indemnity costs; the application, while unsuccessful and with little merit, was not so hopeless or abusive as to be out of the norm. Standard basis costs are appropriate. The liquidator's conduct, while brusque, did not justify removal or indemnity costs.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2371 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Samson Akwagbe; First Respondent: Frazer Ulrick (as liquidator of BL 634 Limited); Second Respondent: Catherine Printziou & 4 Others (as liquidation committee of BL 634 Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Application for Removal of Liquidator
Outcome
Application for removal of liquidator dismissed; costs awarded to First Respondent on the standard basis.
Legal Topics
Removal of Liquidator, Costs, Liquidation Committee, Court Discretion in Costs
Insolvency Company Law Removal of Liquidator Costs Liquidation Committee Court Discretion in 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samson Akwagbe

Applicant

Frazer Ulrick (as liquidator of BL 634 Limited)

First Respondent

Catherine Printziou & 4 Others (as liquidation committee of BL 634 Limited)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Application for Removal of Liquidator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the liquidator should be removed under the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis or standard basis
  3. 3 Whether any conduct justified indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's conduct did not reach the threshold for indemnity costs; the application, while unsuccessful and with little merit, was not so hopeless or abusive as to be out of the norm. Standard basis costs are appropriate. The liquidator's conduct, while brusque, did not justify removal or indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Application for removal of liquidator dismissed; costs awarded to First Respondent on the standard basis.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay First Respondent's costs of £18,000 (inclusive of VAT) for the main application and £1,800 (inclusive of VAT) for the application to adduce evidence, total £19,800, payable by 9.9.2025 or 28 days after service of the order, whichever is later.
  • Any shortfall in costs may be recovered as an expense of the liquidation.