Singularis Holdings Ltd (Appellant) v Price Waterhouse Coopers (Respondent) (Bermuda)

Singularis Holdings Ltd (Appellant) v Price Waterhouse Coopers (Respondent) (Bermuda)

PwC is not entitled to recover costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders that were subsequently set aside, as there is no authority or practice requiring an undertaking or order for compliance costs in the context of final disclosure orders. The remedy for wasted preparatory costs lies in seeking a stay or extension pending appeal, not in an automatic entitlement to costs. The Board lacks jurisdiction to order compliance costs after discharge of the orders, and the Liquidators were not obliged to indemnify PwC.

Citation
[2016] UKPC 33
Parties
Appellant/respondent: PricewaterhouseCoopers; Respondent/appellant: Saad Investments Company Limited (In Official Liquidation); Appellant/respondent: Singularis Holdings Ltd (In Official Liquidation); Respondent/appellant: Joint Liquidators of SICL and SHL
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed (majority); dissent would allow appeal and remit quantum
Legal Topics
Costs of Compliance, Disclosure Orders, Undertakings, Jurisdiction, Public Duty, Forum Shopping
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Costs of Compliance Disclosure Orders Undertakings Jurisdiction Public Duty +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Appellant/respondent

Saad Investments Company Limited (In Official Liquidation)

Respondent/appellant

Singularis Holdings Ltd (In Official Liquidation)

Appellant/respondent

Joint Liquidators of SICL and SHL

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PwC is entitled to recover costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders that were subsequently set aside
  2. 2 Whether an undertaking or order for compliance costs should have been required from the Liquidators
  3. 3 Whether there is jurisdiction to order compliance costs after discharge of the disclosure orders

Ratio Decidendi

PwC is not entitled to recover costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders that were subsequently set aside, as there is no authority or practice requiring an undertaking or order for compliance costs in the context of final disclosure orders. The remedy for wasted preparatory costs lies in seeking a stay or extension pending appeal, not in an automatic entitlement to costs. The Board lacks jurisdiction to order compliance costs after discharge of the orders, and the Liquidators were not obliged to indemnify PwC.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed (majority); dissent would allow appeal and remit quantum

Orders

  • PwC's application for an order for costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders is dismissed.
  • No order for compliance costs is made.