Deg-Deutsche Investitions-Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft MBH v Koshy & Ors

Deg-Deutsche Investitions-Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft MBH v Koshy & Ors

The court does not have jurisdiction to set aside the Harman Order for costs made in 1998, as neither inherent jurisdiction nor CPR 3.1(7) applies. Mr Koshy's election before the Court of Appeal precludes him from seeking relief by way of a fresh application, and the present application constitutes an abuse of process.

Parties
Claimant: DEG-Deutsche Investitions-und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH; Defendant: Thomas Koshy; Defendant: Lummus Agricultural Services Company Limited; Defendant: Warrant Trustees Limited sued as the Trustees of Palms Trust; Defendant: Haze Securities Limited; Defendant: Centel Limited; Defendant: Hi-Pro Holdings Limited; Defendant: Hi-Pro (UK) Limited; Defendant: Hi-Pro Aviation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Costs, Abuse of Process, Material Non Disclosure, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Costs Abuse of Process Material Non Disclosure Freezing 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DEG-Deutsche Investitions-und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH

Claimant

Thomas Koshy

Defendant

Lummus Agricultural Services Company Limited

Defendant

Warrant Trustees Limited sued as the Trustees of Palms Trust

Defendant

Haze Securities Limited

Defendant

Centel Limited

Defendant

Hi-Pro Holdings Limited

Defendant

Hi-Pro (UK) Limited

Defendant

Hi-Pro Aviation Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the court have jurisdiction to set aside the Harman Order for costs made in 1998?
  2. 2 Is Mr Koshy precluded from seeking relief due to his election before the Court of Appeal in July 2002?

Ratio Decidendi

The court does not have jurisdiction to set aside the Harman Order for costs made in 1998, as neither inherent jurisdiction nor CPR 3.1(7) applies. Mr Koshy's election before the Court of Appeal precludes him from seeking relief by way of a fresh application, and the present application constitutes an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Koshy's application to set aside the Harman Order is dismissed.