Simpson & Ors (t/a Harrow Solicitors and Advocates) v Godson & Ors

Simpson & Ors (t/a Harrow Solicitors and Advocates) v Godson & Ors

The applicants failed to show any real prospect of defending the claims or any compelling reason for trial; the evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimants. The costs order against Mrs Thirumahal was too broad and should be limited to 25% of the application costs against her.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Gavyn Simpson; Claimant/respondent: Elvin Blades; Claimant/respondent: Ranjan Herath; Claimant/respondent: Stephen Down (trading as Harrow Solicitors and Advocates); Defendant/applicant: Jude Darrell Godson; Defendant/applicant: Arulanantham Thirumahal; Defendant/applicant: Murugan Gopalan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Applications for Permission to Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Mr Godson's and Mr Gopalan's applications for permission to appeal dismissed; Mrs Thirumahal granted permission and her appeal on costs allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Forgery, Knowing Assistance, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Employment Law Fraud Summary Judgment Forgery Knowing Assistance Costs Orders

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gavyn Simpson

Claimant/respondent

Elvin Blades

Claimant/respondent

Ranjan Herath

Claimant/respondent

Stephen Down (trading as Harrow Solicitors and Advocates)

Claimant/respondent

Jude Darrell Godson

Defendant/applicant

Arulanantham Thirumahal

Defendant/applicant

Murugan Gopalan

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Applications for Permission to Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting summary judgment against the applicants for alleged theft and overpayment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had a real prospect of defending the claim or there was any other compelling reason for trial.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against Mrs Thirumahal was too broad and should be limited.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to show any real prospect of defending the claims or any compelling reason for trial; the evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimants. The costs order against Mrs Thirumahal was too broad and should be limited to 25% of the application costs against her.

Court Disposition

Mr Godson's and Mr Gopalan's applications for permission to appeal dismissed; Mrs Thirumahal granted permission and her appeal on costs allowed in part.

Orders

  • Summary judgment against Mr Godson for £223,731.50 plus interest and costs on the indemnity basis.
  • Summary judgment against Mrs Thirumahal for £39,315.16 plus interest and 25% of application costs on the standard basis, not to be enforced without court permission.