Home Farm Developments Ltd; Strata Developments Ltd; Shane Holmes v Jamie Le Sueur

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
JudgeJ. A. Clyde-Smith
Judgment Date01 July 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] JRC 146
Date01 July 2015

[2015] JRC 146

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq, Commissioner, sitting alone.

Home Farm Developments Ltd
First Appellant
Strata Developments Ltd
Second Appellant
Shane Holmes
Third Appellant
and
Jamie Le Sueur
Respondent

Mr Holmes appeared personally and as a director of the First and Second Appellants.

Advocate M. H. D. Taylor for the Respondent.

Authorities

Home Farm Developments Ltd and Ors -v- Le Sueur [2015] JRC 110.

Home Farm Developments -v- Le Sueur [2014] JRC 079.

Marange Investments Proprietary Limited v La Générale des Carrières et des Mines SARL [2013] JRC 119A.

Watkins v Egglishaw [2002] JLR 1.

C v P-S [2010] JLR 645.

Leeds United Football Club v Weston and Levy [2012] JCA 088.

Flynn v Reid [2012] (2) JLR 226.

Civil Proceedings (Jersey) Law 1956.

Debt — costs judgment

THE COMMISSIONER:
1

By its judgement of 21 st May, 2015, ( Home Farm Developments Ltd and Ors -v- Le Sueur [2015] JRC 110), the Court dismissed the appeal brought by the appellants against the decision of the Master of 26 th March, 2014, ( Home Farm Developments -v- Le Sueur [2014] JRC 079) to strike out their claim. In its conclusion at paragraph 29, the Court agreed with the Master that the proceedings were both scandalous and vexatious and an abuse of process.

2

The respondent now seeks his costs both for this appeal and for the associated claim brought by way of Order of Justice (matter number 2014/156) for the monies due on a promissory note for which judgment was given on the same day in the sum of £21,000.

3

On 16 th June, 2014, the Master ordered the appellants to pay security in respect of their appeal in the sum of £15,000 and that sum was paid into Court on 11 th July, 2014.

4

Two orders for costs have already been made by the Master in relation to the proceedings which are the subject of the appeal and which were not taxed until 2 nd December, 2014, in the sum of £13,027.10p and the sum of £5,872.85p respectively. These sums, which now rank as a civil debt, have not been paid by the appellants.

5

The respondent is reluctant to engage any further with the appellants through the taxation process that would follow any order for costs as he fears it will lead to yet further disputes and appeals and he therefore seeks an order for costs in relation to both the appeal and the Order of Justice on a summary basis.

6

Advocate Taylor for the respondent produced a schedule of his firm's costs which in relation to the appeal show the sum of £16,216 being due applying Factor A with no uplift and £27,799 being due applying a Factor B uplift of 50%, which I understand to be the normal level of uplift applied in litigation of this kind and that is in fact the sum that he has charged his client. In relation to the Order of Justice the schedule shows the sum of £799 being due applying Factor A with no uplift and £1,234 applying an uplift of just under 50%, and again it is the latter sum which he has charged his client.

7

In reliance on the case of Marange Investments Proprietary Limited v La Générale des Carrières et des Mines SARL [2013] JRC 119A, Advocate Taylor sought an order for the payment by way of summary assessment of at least £15,000 for his client's costs on the appeal, which he said equates to a very substantial discount and is a sum which I could be satisfied that the respondent would almost certainly collect following a taxation. In relation to the Order of Justice, he sought the sum of £1,000.

8

Marange was concerned with the payment on account of a sum that would be collected on taxation and it left the payor with the safety net of the taxation process, so that in the event of the Court materially miscalculating the quantum of the sum payable on account, any sums overpaid could be recouped. In this case, the respondent seeks a summary order thus depriving the appellants of the process of taxation. Furthermore, the respondent only seeks such an order if, in the case of the appeal, it is at least £15,000. If I was minded, on a summary assessment, to award less than this sum, then he asked for a payment on account and for taxation.

9

Mr Holmes, for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT