Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

The application to adjourn was refused because it was made too late, lacked merit, and any prejudice to the applicant was self-inflicted. The listing process was not flawed, and the applicant had sufficient opportunity to instruct counsel. The disruption to the court and claimant outweighed any alleged prejudice to the applicant. Costs were awarded to the claimant on the indemnity basis, summarily assessed at £15,000.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant: Scott Dylan; Defendant: Gareth Michael Dylan; Defendant: Sally Ann Glover; Defendant: David Samuel Antrobus; Defendant: OLD3 Limited (in administration) (Previously Fresh Thinking Group Ltd); Defendant: Jack Mason; Defendant: OLD3 Limited (in administration) (Previously INC Travel Group Ltd); Non Party Respondent: Citibank, N.A.; Non Party Applicant: Global Investment Management Holdings, Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Adjournment Application
Outcome
Application to adjourn refused; costs awarded to claimant.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Non Party Disclosure, Costs
Civil Procedure Adjournment Non Party Disclosure 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant/respondent

Scott Dylan

Defendant

Gareth Michael Dylan

Defendant

Sally Ann Glover

Defendant

David Samuel Antrobus

Defendant

OLD3 Limited (in administration) (Previously Fresh Thinking Group Ltd)

Defendant

Jack Mason

Defendant

OLD3 Limited (in administration) (Previously INC Travel Group Ltd)

Defendant

Citibank, N.A.

Non Party Respondent

Global Investment Management Holdings, Inc.

Non Party Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Adjournment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing fixed for the three-day window commencing 29 November 2023 should be adjourned
  2. 2 Whether the listing process was procedurally flawed
  3. 3 Whether the applicant would be prejudiced by proceeding without its chosen counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The application to adjourn was refused because it was made too late, lacked merit, and any prejudice to the applicant was self-inflicted. The listing process was not flawed, and the applicant had sufficient opportunity to instruct counsel. The disruption to the court and claimant outweighed any alleged prejudice to the applicant. Costs were awarded to the claimant on the indemnity basis, summarily assessed at £15,000.

Court Disposition

Application to adjourn refused; costs awarded to claimant.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay claimant's costs summarily assessed at £15,000 including VAT.
  • Hearing to proceed as scheduled in the three-day window commencing 29 November 2023.