Phone-in Trading-post Limited (t/a Admatch) -v- Leeds United Association Football Club Limited (in liquidation) and Leeds United Football Club Limited [2014] JCA 097 (23 April 2014)

Phone-in Trading-post Limited (t/a Admatch) -v- Leeds United Association Football Club Limited (in liquidation) and Leeds United Football Club Limited [2014] JCA 097 (23 April 2014)

Leave to appeal was refused because the Bailiff's decisions were matters of case management and discretion, with no error, misdirection, or plainly wrong decision identified. The application for a temporary stay was refused as logically inconsistent with the refusal of leave. Indemnity costs were awarded due to unreasonable conduct and late, meritless application.

Citation
[2014] JCA 097
Parties
Applicant/defendant: The Phone-In-Trading-Post (t/a Admatch); First Respondent/first Plaintiff: Leeds United Association Football Club Limited; Second Respondent/second Plaintiff: Leeds United Football Club Limited (formerly Leeds United 2007 Limited)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
23 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Temporary Stay / Court of Appeal, Single Judge, Post Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; temporary stay refused; indemnity costs awarded against Mr Weston.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Adjournment, Security for Costs, Indemnity Costs, Case Management Discretion, Extension of Time
Civil Procedure Costs Case Management Leave to Appeal Adjournment Security for Costs Indemnity Costs Case Management Discretion +1 more

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 1 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Phone-In-Trading-Post (t/a Admatch)

Applicant/defendant

Leeds United Association Football Club Limited

First Respondent/first Plaintiff

Leeds United Football Club Limited (formerly Leeds United 2007 Limited)

Second Respondent/second Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Temporary Stay / Court of Appeal, Single Judge, Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the Bailiff's decisions on adjournment, security for costs, costs orders, and case management.
  2. 2 Whether a temporary stay of proceedings should be granted pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Bailiff's decisions were matters of case management and discretion, with no error, misdirection, or plainly wrong decision identified. The application for a temporary stay was refused as logically inconsistent with the refusal of leave. Indemnity costs were awarded due to unreasonable conduct and late, meritless application.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; temporary stay refused; indemnity costs awarded against Mr Weston.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused in all respects.
  • Temporary stay of proceedings refused.