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 £5, 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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Harrington Scott Ltd v Coupe Bradbury Solicitors Ltd [2023] EWHC 294 (Ch) (12 January 2023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/294.html Cite as: [2023] EWHC 294 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
Fetter Lane London, EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
____________________
HARRINGTON SCOTT LIMITED |
Claimant/Respondent |
|
- and - |
||
COUPE BRADBURY SOLICITORS LIMITED |
Defendant/Applicant |
____________________
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
[email protected]
MS REBECCA PAGE (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Applicant.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
JUDGE HODGE KC:
(1) The defendant's failure properly to estimate the length of time it required for its application;
(2) The defendant's failure correctly to identify the level of judiciary required, which caused the matter to be adjourned; and
(3) What he says was the defendant's then instructed leading counsel's curious request for more time for personal reasons into which I need not go.
(1) The extraordinary circumstances of the case, and the claimant's dishonesty and unreasonable conduct as set out in my substantive judgment, and which she has highlighted at paragraphs 12 to 14 of her skeleton argument;
(2) The late abandonment of the claim for costs for the Moscow office (which I found to be dishonest) in the skeleton before the December 2021 hearing, after very substantial costs had been incurred on that issue on both the claim and the application;
(3) The claimant's late concession, part way through the hearing, that the evidence that Mr Vickers had given at paragraph 332 of his first witness statement in opposition to the defendant's application was wrong; and, finally,
(4) The concession that paragraph 126 of the particulars of claim should be struck out.