![KA-2025-000012 - [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
KA-2025-000012 - [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
Fecha: 16-Sep-2025
Conclusions
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, I allow this appeal and quash the order made by His Honour Judge Simpkiss that the Appellants should pay to the Respondent the sum of £10,653.
In accordance with the Court’s powers under CPR Part 52.20(2), I vary the order of the learned judge to one of “no order as to costs”. This seems to me to reflect the justice of the matter below. On the one hand, the learned judge was right to lift the stay given that Mr Middleton was no longer involved in the proceedings. On the other hand, the argument made by the Respondent as to Mr Middleton’s earlier entitlement to be involved in the proceedings was erroneous.
I make no order with respect to any of the other costs incurred by the Appellants at earlier stages of the proceedings. These will fall for consideration by the County Court when the proceedings are concluded.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- The Appeal
- Submissions by the parties Was Mr Middleton entitled to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall?
- Representations from the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority
- Was the learned judge entitled to award costs against the Appellants?
- Discussion
- Was Mr Middleton entitled to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall?
- Was the learned judge entitled to award costs against the Appellants?
- Other relief
- Conclusions