HT-2023-000006 - [2024] EWHC 2914 (TCC)

In Judgment No. 5, I found that £101,543.17 was due to A & V.

Following this, A & V sought a Third Party Debt Order targeted at J&BH bank accounts held with the NatWest Group.

J&BH contended that such an order should not be made. It raised a jurisdictional argument and an argument that the Order should not be considered or made until all issues as to costs and other consequential issues had been resolved.

The issues as to this application have now been transferred to me.

By this judgment, I believe I have now resolved all matters between these Parties save for any application for permission to appeal.

As will be seen below, a net sum is due from J&BH to A & V, but it is much less than the £101,543.17 sought, because of my decision as to costs payable by A & V to J&BH.

In the circumstances, I accept that the September 2024 hearing was a premature moment at which to seek a Third Party Debt Order. However, it would not now be unreasonable for A & V to seek such an order now in a lesser sum, given that, as A & V has submitted, J&BH has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying A & V sums due, which suggests that the pressure of such an order might well be necessary. Accordingly there will be such an order in the amount held due once interest has been calculated.

As to costs, J&BH made a jurisdictional challenge which failed and must have contributed to the amount of costs incurred. Had the issue only been as to whether an Order should be granted before issues as to Costs had been considered, then the matter could have been resolved by asking either the Master or myself to decide that on paper (the matter was referred to in emails placed before me – I indicated that I would not intervene except in response to an application. No application was then made to me). It should not have been necessary to incur costs in excess of £10,000.

In my judgment, the appropriate order is that there should be no order as to costs.