[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions >> Yerbury v Azets Holdings Ltd [2025] EWHC 758 (KB) (31 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/758.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 758 (KB)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		31 March 2025

Mr Justice Sweeting:

1. This is my judgment in relation to consequential matters arising from the substantive judgment, in which I dismissed the Appellant's appeal. The issues which arise are the Appellant's application for permission to bring a further appeal and costs.
2. In respect of the Appellant's request for permission to appeal, this would be a second appeal in all respects, therefore CPR r.52.7 applies. Under CPR r.52.7(1), permission is required from the Court of Appeal. In any event given the reasons, set out in the judgment, for dismissing the appeal I do not consider that a further appeal would have a real prospect of success. It is a matter for Mr Yerbrey whether he wishes to make an application for permission to appeal; he will need to comply with the time limit set out in the rules if he does so.
3. Turning to the matter of costs, the Appellant, suggested in his comments on the draft order that there should be no order as to costs. His reasoning was based on an assertion that the proceedings were brought due to a failure by AHL to comply with their code of conduct, and deception on its part as to the identity of the correct defendant. He argued that AHL brought these costs unnecessarily upon themselves and should bear them.
4. The Respondent maintains that it has succeeded in resisting the appeal and that costs should follow the event. I should add that the Respondent denies breaching its Code of Conduct because it was under no obligation to inform the Appellant of the correct defendant. The Master also held that AHL were under no duty to nominate the correct defendants or state explicitly that they were not the proper defendant, and that there was accordingly no deception. The Appellant was not given permission to appeal in relation to issues of estoppel and representation which were not, as a result, argued before me.
5. The Respondent points out that the Appellant decided to bring the current appeal long after the Respondent's position as to the correct defendant had been made clear. I see no reason to depart from the general rule. The Appellant shall pay the Respondent's costs of this appeal, to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed.
6. The Respondent's submissions on the draft order also addressed the matter of an interim payment on account of costs. Where costs are ordered to be subject to detailed assessment, as is the case here, an interim payment is the default position under CPR r.44.2(8).
7. The Appellant did not address specifically why an interim payment should not be ordered or its amount, beyond his general argument that there should be no order as to costs. As I have already rejected the Appellant's arguments regarding costs, there is also no reason to depart from the default position in relation to an interim payment.
8. Therefore, in accordance with CPR r.44.2(8), I will order that the Appellant make a payment on account of the Respondent's costs in the sum of £10,000; being a reasonable assessment at this stage of the minimum sum which the respondent is likely to recover by reference to the schedule of costs but allowing generous room for argument.
9. I have made provision in the order for a stay in respect of costs if an application for permission to appeal is made to the Court of Appeal. If permission were to be granted, then it would be a matter for the Court of Appeal as to whether the stay ought to be continued.

END