RBG Resources Plc (In Liquidation) v Rastogi & Ors

RBG Resources Plc (In Liquidation) v Rastogi & Ors

The claimant is permitted to discontinue the action against Mr Patel, but must pay 60% of Mr Patel's costs on the standard basis. There is no good reason to depart from the normal rule that the discontinuing claimant pays the defendant's costs, except that Mr Patel's unreasonable insistence on public exoneration and apology justified depriving him of 40% of his costs. Mr Patel's applications for costs of the Restraint Order and for damages under the cross-undertaking in the Freezing Order are refused.

Parties
Claimant: RBG Resources PLC (In Liquidation); Defendant: Viren Kumar Rastogi; Defendant: Anand Kumar Jain; Defendant: Jay Patel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/fraud) / Application for Permission to Discontinue and Determination of Costs
Outcome
Claimant permitted to discontinue; claimant to pay 60% of Mr Patel's costs on the standard basis; Mr Patel's applications for costs of the Restraint Order and for damages under the cross-undertaking refused.
Legal Topics
Discontinuance of Proceedings, Costs Orders, Freezing Orders, Restraint Orders, Cross Undertakings in Damages
Civil Procedure Insolvency Commercial Law Discontinuance of Proceedings Costs Orders Freezing Orders Restraint Orders Cross Undertakings in Damages

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RBG Resources PLC (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Viren Kumar Rastogi

Defendant

Anand Kumar Jain

Defendant

Jay Patel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/fraud) / Application for Permission to Discontinue and Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 On what terms should the claimant be permitted to discontinue the action against Mr Patel?
  2. 2 Is Mr Patel entitled to his costs, and if so, on what basis and to what extent?
  3. 3 Should Mr Patel recover costs of the Restraint Order?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is permitted to discontinue the action against Mr Patel, but must pay 60% of Mr Patel's costs on the standard basis. There is no good reason to depart from the normal rule that the discontinuing claimant pays the defendant's costs, except that Mr Patel's unreasonable insistence on public exoneration and apology justified depriving him of 40% of his costs. Mr Patel's applications for costs of the Restraint Order and for damages under the cross-undertaking in the Freezing Order are refused.

Court Disposition

Claimant permitted to discontinue; claimant to pay 60% of Mr Patel's costs on the standard basis; Mr Patel's applications for costs of the Restraint Order and for damages under the cross-undertaking refused.

Orders

  • Permission to discontinue granted.
  • Claimant to pay 60% of Mr Patel's costs of the action, assessed on the standard basis.