Holmes -v- Lingard and Others [2017] JRC 150 (18 September 2017)

Holmes -v- Lingard and Others [2017] JRC 150 (18 September 2017)

It is premature to order a payment on account of costs when the overall costs position between the plaintiff and the first defendant is not known, especially as there are costs orders in favour of both parties and pending applications.

Citation
[2017] JRC 150
Parties
Plaintiff: Holmes; First Defendant: Lingard
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Payment on Account of Costs / Post Summary Judgment, Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for payment on account of costs refused
Legal Topics
Payment on Account of Costs, Summary Judgment, Appeal, Unjust Enrichment, Fiduciary Duty
Civil Procedure Costs Payment on Account of Costs Summary Judgment Appeal Unjust Enrichment Fiduciary Duty

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holmes

Plaintiff

Lingard

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Payment on Account of Costs / Post Summary Judgment, Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a payment on account of costs should be ordered pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's financial position justifies refusal of payment on account
  3. 3 Whether the merits of the appeal justify a stay of costs payment

Ratio Decidendi

It is premature to order a payment on account of costs when the overall costs position between the plaintiff and the first defendant is not known, especially as there are costs orders in favour of both parties and pending applications.

Court Disposition

Application for payment on account of costs refused

Orders

  • No payment on account of costs ordered
  • No order as to costs in relation to the application