Mubarik v Mubarak [2009] JCA 016 (05 February 2009)

Mubarik v Mubarak [2009] JCA 016 (05 February 2009)

The court awarded indemnity costs to Advocate Renouf due to unreasonable late notice and disruption, standard costs to the First Respondent for the substantive appeal, and rejected wasted costs orders against Advocate Begg, finding no culpable conduct warranting penal costs. Summary assessment was granted for Renouf but not for Lakeman due to insufficient detail. Security for costs was ordered to be released first to Renouf, remainder to First Respondent upon taxation or agreement.

Citation
[2009] JCA 016
Parties
First Respondent: Aaliya Mubarak; Appellant: Iqbal Mubarik; Second Respondent: The Craven Trust Company Limited; Third Respondent: Salem Mubarak and Noor Mubarak; Fourth Respondent: Advocate M. P. Renouf (as guardian ad litem of the minor beneficiaries Osman Mubarak and Hamza Mubarak and representative of the unborn or unascertained beneficiaries)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
05 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Appeal Decision
Outcome
Costs awarded as specified; wasted costs order against Advocate Begg refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Wasted Costs Orders, Trust Litigation, Summary Assessment
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Costs Indemnity Costs Wasted Costs Orders Trust Litigation Summary Assessment

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aaliya Mubarak

First Respondent

Iqbal Mubarik

Appellant

The Craven Trust Company Limited

Second Respondent

Salem Mubarak and Noor Mubarak

Third Respondent

Advocate M. P. Renouf (as guardian ad litem of the minor beneficiaries Osman Mubarak and Hamza Mubarak and representative of the unborn or unascertained beneficiaries)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity or standard basis
  2. 2 Whether a wasted costs order should be made against the appellant's advocate
  3. 3 Whether summary assessment of costs is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The court awarded indemnity costs to Advocate Renouf due to unreasonable late notice and disruption, standard costs to the First Respondent for the substantive appeal, and rejected wasted costs orders against Advocate Begg, finding no culpable conduct warranting penal costs. Summary assessment was granted for Renouf but not for Lakeman due to insufficient detail. Security for costs was ordered to be released first to Renouf, remainder to First Respondent upon taxation or agreement.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded as specified; wasted costs order against Advocate Begg refused.

Orders

  • Advocate Renouf awarded indemnity costs, to be released from security held by the court.
  • First Respondent awarded standard costs for substantive appeal, subject to taxation or agreement.