BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Vistarama Balloon Systems International Ltd v Lindstrand Balloons Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1692 (26 October 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1692.html
Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1692

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 1692
B2/2001/0744

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CHANCERY DIVISION,
BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE WEEKS Sitting as a High Court Judge)


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Friday, 26th October 2001

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER
-and-
MR JUSTICE BODEY

____________________

VISTARAMA BALLOON SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD Claimant
- v -
LINDSTRAND BALLOONS LTD Defendant

____________________

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040
Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR JEREMY BAMFORD (instructed by TLT, Bristol BS99 7JZ) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MR P HAIL (Company Director) appeared on behalf of the Defendant in person.

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Friday, 26th October 2001

  1. LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER: We have been invited to make an order under section 51 of the Supreme Court Act that Mr Hall personally pay the costs of the appeal as from the date upon which the company went into administrative receivership. Notwithstanding Mr Bamford's submissions, I do not think in all the circumstances that it would be just to make such an order. In the event, Mr Hall has not taken any step other than to indicate that he was investigating with his fellow directors whether it was possible to procure the company to proceed with the appeal. That has not happened, and the company accordingly has not appeared today since Mr Hall has no authority to speak on its behalf, and the appeal has been struck out.
  2. Furthermore, it seems to me that the remedy lay in the hands of the petitioner in that it could at an early stage have applied for security for costs under CPR 25 section 2. In the circumstances, therefore, we decline to make the order sought by the petitioner against Mr Hall.
  3. That only leaves the question of summary assessment. We consider that the statement of the petitioner's costs is reasonable. The only matter which requires adjustment is the seven hours which have been allowed for the hearing. We consider that five of those hours should be deducted, which comes to £625. We assess the sum in the costs of £7750.
  4. (Application dismissed; costs assessed).


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1692.html