Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Charles Holroyd (instructed by Reed Smith LLP) for the Claimants The Defendants were not represented and did not appear Hearing date: 26 September 2022 ____________________
(i)�"An order against a non-party is exceptional and it will only be made if it is just to do so in all the circumstances of the case �";
(ii) "The touchstone is whether, despite not being a party to the litigation, the director can fairly be described as 'the real party to the litigation'�";
(iii) "In the case of an insolvent company involved in litigation which has resulted in a costs liability that the company cannot pay, a director of that company may be made the subject of such an order. Although such instances will necessarily be rare �, s.51 orders may be made to avoid the injustice of an individual director hiding behind a corporate identity, so as to engage in risk-free litigation for his own purposes ...";
(v) "In this way, matters such as the control and/or funding of the litigation, and particularly the alleged personal benefit to the director of so doing, are helpful� indicia �as to whether or not a s.51 order would be just. But they remain merely elements of the guidance given by the authorities, not a checklist that needs to be completed in every case �";
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.