High Court Decides on Costs in Complex Corporate Dispute

High Court Decides on Costs in Complex Corporate Dispute

The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, handed down a judgment on 15 January 2025, concerning the costs of several applications in a complex corporate dispute. The case, presided over by Mr Justice Trower, involved Peter Waddell Holdco Limited and Peter Waddell as claimants against Bluebell Cars Holding Limited and others as defendants.

The judgment addressed the costs associated with four primary applications: the Petition Amendment Application, the Debarring Application, the Part 7 Amendment Application, and the Stay Application. The court had previously ruled on these applications in a judgment handed down on 28 November 2024.

In the Petition Amendment Application, the court considered whether Peter Waddell Holdco Limited (PWHL) should bear the costs of amendments to the petition. The court ruled that PWHL should pay the costs on the standard basis, with 85% of the costs to be paid by PWHL and 15% to be costs in the case. The court found that some amendments could not have been made at the time of the original petition due to new information that had come to light.

The Debarring Application, which sought to prevent Bluebell Cars TopCo Limited from filing and serving points of defence, was deemed speculative and opportunistic. The court ruled that PWHL should pay the costs of this application on the indemnity basis, reflecting the court's view that the application was out of the norm.

Regarding the Part 7 Amendment Application, the court ordered PWHL and Mr Waddell to pay the costs of amendments to the particulars of claim on the standard basis. The court rejected PWHL's argument for a proportional cost order, finding that the usual rule should apply.

The Stay Application, which sought to stay the Part 7 claim pending the resolution of the petition, was also found to be speculative and thin. The court ordered PWHL and Mr Waddell to pay the costs on the indemnity basis, citing the lack of a coherent explanation for the application and its inconsistency with previous positions taken by the claimants.

The court declined to carry out a summary assessment of costs due to the substantial amounts involved and the complexity of the apportionments. Instead, a detailed assessment was ordered, with interim payments on account specified for each party.

This case highlights the importance of coherent and consistent legal strategies in complex corporate disputes, as well as the potential financial implications of speculative applications.

Learn More

For more information on shareholder law, see BeCivil's guide to Shareholder Law.