Michael John Isaac v Tan Sri Dato'Vincent Tan & Anor

Michael John Isaac v Tan Sri Dato'Vincent Tan & Anor

The Respondents were the successful parties overall, as the main relief sought by the Petitioner was refused. Costs should follow the event, and the Respondents are entitled to their costs subject to detailed assessment. There is no good reason not to order an interim payment on account, but due to the narrowing of issues after the costs budgeting phase, a more conservative percentage should be applied to the budgeted figures.

Parties
Petitioner: Michael John Isaac; Respondent: Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan; Respondent: Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Company Petition (unfair Prejudice) / Costs Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Costs awarded to Respondents; interim payment on account ordered
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Costs, Costs Budgeting, Interim Payment on Account
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Costs Costs Budgeting Interim Payment on Account

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Isaac

Petitioner

Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan

Respondent

Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Petition (unfair Prejudice) / Costs Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the proceedings?
  2. 2 Should an interim payment on account of costs be ordered, and if so, in what amount?

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents were the successful parties overall, as the main relief sought by the Petitioner was refused. Costs should follow the event, and the Respondents are entitled to their costs subject to detailed assessment. There is no good reason not to order an interim payment on account, but due to the narrowing of issues after the costs budgeting phase, a more conservative percentage should be applied to the budgeted figures.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Respondents; interim payment on account ordered

Orders

  • Petitioner to pay Respondents' costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Petitioner to make an interim payment on account of costs, calculated at 50% of incurred costs prior to budgeting and 60% of budgeted costs thereafter, plus 3% for costs management.