Crystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd. v Dowie, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, February 18, 2008, [2008] EWHC 240 (QB)

Extract

---

Crystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd. v Dowie, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, February 18, 2008, [2008] EWHC 240 (QB)

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 240 (QB)

Case No: HQ07X033335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 18/02/2008

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr John Davies QC (instructed by Messrs Fladgate Fielder Solicitors) for the Claimant

Mr Andrew Hochhauser QC and Mr Vernon Flynn (instructed by Messrs Barker Austin) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 4-5 February 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

Draft 19 February 2008 10:12 Page 2

Mr Justice Wyn Williams:

1. On 14 June 2007 Tugendhat J handed down judgment upon two preliminary issues tried in proceedings commenced by the Claimant against the Defendant by a Claim Form issued on 30 May 2006. The preliminary issues for determination by the Judge were as follows: -

a) whether or not the Claimant entered into a compromise agreement dated 22 May 2006 on the basis of alleged fraudulent representations by the Defendant in terms set out in identified paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim and

b) whether, if the answer to issue (a) was yes, the compromise agreement dated 22 May 2006 should be rescinded.

Tugendhat J answered the first of the preliminary issues in the affirmative but the second in the negative.

2. As a consequence of the judgment upon the preliminary issues a detailed Order was promulgated. It is to be found at Bundle 2 pages 245 to 248. The salient parts of the Order, however, can be summarised in the following way:-

(a) judgment was entered for the Claimant upon the first preliminary issue;

(b) judgment was entered for the Defendant on the second preliminary issue;

(c) orders for costs were made which I set out in full:-

``3. As to costs which were reserved under previous Court Orders:-

a. The Defendant pay 50% of the Claimant's costs of the Claimant's application for specific disclosure dated 28 November 2006, the costs of which were reserved by order of 9 February 2007, to be assessed if not agreed;

b. The Claimant pay 50% of the Defendant's costs of the Defendant's application for specific disclosure dated 30 November 2006, the costs of which were reserved by order of 9 February 2007, to be assessed if not agreed;

c. There be no order as to costs in respect of the Defendant's application for security for costs dated 30 November 2006, the costs of which were reserved by order of 7 March 2007.

4. The Defendant pay the Claimant's costs of the preliminary issues on the indemnity basis, to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed.

5. The Defendant pay the Claimant the sum of £150,000 on account of the costs referred to in paragraph 4 above by 4.00pm on 3 August 2007.''

(d) permission to appeal was refused as was a stay of the order for costs o...

See the full content of this document

---