- In brief: Non-party costs orders against directors of an insolvent corporate claimant (Montpelier Business Reorganisation Ltd v Armitage Jones LLP)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was this case about?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Alex Bagnall, Associate at Just Costs Solicitors considers the case Montpelier Business Reorganisation Ltd v Armitage Jones LLP. Montpelier was ordered to pay costs (including a sum on account of costs) and damages to the defendants. The claimant was insolvent and so no monies were paid. During the course of cross examination it had been said by a director of Montpelier and of a company known as MP Leeds that MP Leeds and a company known as MPL had funded the case. It was asserted by the defendants to the substantive claim (the applicants) that the circumstances of the case justified the making of a non-party costs order against MP Leeds and MPL under s.51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. HHJ Saffman—sitting as a judge of the High Court—reviewed the relevant authorities and balanced the numerous factors which militated towards and against the making of non-party costs orders. It was held that it was appropriate for such an order to be made against MPL but not MP Leeds.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial