UK case law
The Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Gale & Ors
[2008] EWHC ADMIN 1095 · High Court (Administrative Court) · 2008
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
STANLEY BURNTON LJ :
1. On 23 November 2007 I made an order for assessing the costs of the Interim Receiver at the sum of £9500 and ordering them to be paid by the Fourth Respondent, Mrs Peel. I said that I would determine the question of payment of those costs on the basis of written submissions.
2. I have considered the letters of Russell Jones & Walker on behalf of Mrs Peel and those of Blake Lapthorne Tarlo Lyons on behalf of The Interim Receiver Mr Earp.
3. I have sympathy with the position of Mrs Peel. She is not capable of managing her own affairs. She is involved in these proceedings on the basis that assets in her name in reality belong to the First Respondent. It is not suggested that she is personally blameworthy in relation to the substantive matters to be tried in these proceedings.
4. Nonetheless, some good reason beyond her limited means is required if she is not to be ordered to pay the costs in question. In my judgment, none of the matters relied upon on her behalf satisfy that requirement.
5. That is not to say that the costs should not be paid out of assets controlled by the Receiver. However, for them to be so paid would require an order of the Court in these proceedings, and the First Respondent and the ARA would have to be given the opportunity to be heard on an application for them to be so paid.
6. Whether as between Mrs Peel and Mr Gale or her solicitors there should be any attribution of liability for the costs in question is not for me to consider on this application.
7. In these circumstances, I order Mrs Peel to pay the costs in question within 6 weeks. That period will enable those acting on her behalf to decide whether in consequence any further application need to be made such as that foreshadowed in paragraph 5 above.
8. In my judgment, any further application in relation to these costs should be considered in the context of the substantive proceedings, and preferably by the judge who is to hear those proceedings.