Court of Appeal reviews key principles to consider when making a non-party costs order
Under section 51(1) Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) the English courts have the discretion to make a non-party costs order (NPCO), that is an order for a person/entity who was not a party to proceedings to pay all of or contribute towards the costs of and incidental to the litigation.
In Goknur Gida Maddeleri Eneji Imalet Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret Ve Sanayi As v Cengiz Aytacli [2021] EWCA Civ 1037 the Court of Appeal recently considered whether an NPCO should be made against a director or shareholder of a company that had become insolvent during the course of litigation and faced was subject to adverse costs orders.
The facts
The appellant, Goknur, is a company based in Turkey that manufactures and supplies fruit juice. The respondent to the appeal, Mr Aytacli, was until his resignation in 2016, the director of Organic Village, one of Goknur’s UK sellers.
Organic Village contracted to sell Goknur’s juice on the basis that it would be not from concentrate. In 2011 Organic Village rejected some stock and stopped payment of the same, arguing that the juice supplied was in breach of the contract. Goknur issued a claim against Organic Village in respect of the unpaid stock and Organic Village bought a counterclaim for the losses it had suffered as a result of Goknur’s breach of contract. The resulting litigation was a lengthy and costly exercise for both parties during which Goknur’s claim was struck out and various costs orders were made against it, on account of which it paid £185,300. Organic Village’s counterclaim concluded in a trial that saw Organic Village awarded nominal damages of £2, with both parties incurring significant costs in the process. Organic Village ceased trading during the period of extensive litigation between 2011 and 2018 and subsequently failed to comply with an order to commence a detailed assessment of its costs as it had insufficient funds to do so.
Goknur made an application for an NPCO against Mr Aytacli in the sum of £249,605.43, made up of (1) the £185,300 Goknur had paid on account of costs and (2) £64,305.43 due to it under a costs order made in its favour regarding Organic Village’s counterclaim. The application was refused and Goknur appealed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. In doing so, it considered and summarised the applicable principles when determining whether an NCPO should be made against a director or shareholder of an insolvent company which incurs a costs liability in litigation.
Key Principles
- An NPCO should be exceptional and only made if it is just to do so in all circumstances.
- The touchstone is whether a director can fairly be described as the “real party to the litigation” by funding and controlling or being set to benefit in any way from the proceedings.
- When an insolvent company is involved in litigation that results in a costs liability that it cannot pay, a director of that company may be subject to an NPCO. Such instances will be rare but, when made, will help avoid the injustice of directors hiding behind the corporate veil and engaging in risk-free litigation for their own benefit. In such circumstances, an NPCO does not infringe the principle of limited liability.
- A director controlling/funding the litigation on behalf of the company, and any alleged personal benefit of the director doing so, are helpful indicators for a court when considering whether to make an NPCO, but should only act as guiding factors and not a checklist to use in every case.
- If litigation is pursued or maintained for the benefit of the company, then a party seeking an NPCO against a director will need to show something more and demonstrate why it is just for an NPCO to be made. “Something more” will typically involve some form of impropriety or bad faith by the director in connection with the litigation.
- Such impropriety or bad faith will need to be sufficiently serious in nature and will need to be linked to causing the party applying for the order to unnecessarily incur costs in the litigation. Examples include where a director deliberately pursues a false claim or defence, or where a director swears false evidence in support of the company’s claim or defence with the intention of misleading the court.
In dismissing Goknur’s appeal, the court concluded that the litigation between Goknur and Organic Village was not for Mr Aytacli’s own benefit, nor was there any bad faith or impropriety on his part, and an NPCO against Mr Aytacli would not be in the interests of justice. Regarding the two separate amounts of £185,300 and £64,205.43, the court held that the reality was that Goknur was liable to Organic Village for the former (since Organic Village’s liability arose because of its inability to afford to fund detailed assessment proceedings) and an NPCO against Mr Aytacli would have been “absurdly unjust”. With regards to the latter, the court acknowledged that the same argument didn’t apply but that it would still be unjust to make an order because of the lack of personal benefit to Mr Aytacli and absence of bad faith or impropriety on his part.
In summary, a party applying for an NPCO will need to persuade the court that either the director was seeking to personally benefit from the company’s pursuit of and/or position in the litigation, or that they were guilty of impropriety or bad faith. Without one or the other it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the applying party to persuade the court that an NPCO is just.
Our thinking
Jessica Williams
Administrators beware where more than 20 redundancies are planned
The case of Palmer has confirmed that an insolvency practitioner in the role of an administrator can be prosecuted.
Melania Constable
Melania Constable and Georgina O'Sullivan write for P3 Pharmacy on the easing of Covid winding up restrictions
Regulations mean that a creditor can once again rely on an unpaid statutory demand to apply to the court for a winding-up petition.
Dimitri A. Sonier
Dimitri Sonier and Denis Meyer write for Les Echos Solutions on the restructuring and reform of French insolvency law
Dimitri and Denis consider developments to French insolvency law following changes earlier in 2021.
Denis Meyer
Capital Finance and La Lettre des Juristes d'Affaires report on the recruitment of Denis Meyer as Counsel in the firm's Paris office
Denis joins the firm's Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency team in the Paris office.
James Hyne
Charles Russell Speechlys named in Global Restructuring Review’s GRR 100 2021
Restructuring and Insolvency team ranked in Global Restructuring Review
Georgina Bernard
Privy Council confirms ability of courts to grant freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings – but beware the minority report
Georgina looks at the landmark Privy Council judgment on freezing and interim injunctions
Georgina Bernard
PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon: A Warning for Directors in Breach of Section 216 Insolvency Act 1986
Georgina takes a look at PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon
Daniel Moore
Global Restructuring Review and Law 360 report on the firm's success on behalf of the joint liquidators of LB GP No 1 Limited
After three years of litigation, the Court of Appeal has unanimously accepted GP1’s grounds of appeal.
Hanh Nguyen
Insolvencies and rising prices: the energy retail market in flux
Hanh and Sara take a look at the energy market
Charles Russell Speechlys successfully advises the Joint Liquidators of LB GP No.1 Ltd in Lehman Brothers litigation before the Court of Appeal
LBGP is a company within the Lehman Brothers Group, whose purpose was to raise regulatory capital for parts of the Group.
Jamie Tilling
Jamie Tilling writes for ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE Magazine on the ramifications of Al Jaber v Mitchell for insolvency practitioners and their investigations
The Court of Appeal has held that the doctrine of immunity from suit applies to statements made by an examinee.
James Hyne
Global Restructuring Review feature the firm’s involvement advising the joint liquidators of LB GP No 1 Limited in the Lehman Brothers’ sub-debt appeal
The Lehman Brothers’ sub-debt appeal continues with guarantor question.
Denis Meyer
The importance of anticipating the restructuring of State Guaranteed Loans
Denis looks at the importance of anticipating the restructuring of State Guaranteed Loans
Hannah Edwards
Phase out of temporary restrictions on use of winding up petitions
Hannah takes a look at the recent UK Government announcement on statutory demands and the presentation of winding up petitions
Gabrielle Shovlin
Be careful what you reference: when witness evidence waives privilege
Gabrielle looks at the recent decision in Scipharm Sarl v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and its impact on privilege
Rory Partridge
Weighing in on the importance of attention to detail in service cases
Rory looks at recent judgments that have emphasised the need to follow correct procedure when serving documents in court cases
Emma Humphreys
Property Patter: the whys and wherefores of receivership
What is a fixed charge receiver?
Emma Humphreys
Property Patter: the news so far on landlord challenges to retail CVAs
We review some of the recent high-profile landlord challenges to tenant CVAs,
Daniel Moore
No “New Look” in the latest landlord challenge to a tenant CVA
Daniel and Hannah look at the impact of the recent New Look CVA judgment
Roger Elford
Roger Elford quoted by React News on the use of restructuring plans
Restructuring plans can make it easier to overcome opposition from dissenting creditors.