Not at Counsel’s Convenience

Not at Counsel’s Convenience

Not at Counsel’s convenience featured in the seemingly unhappy case of Horler v Rubin [2019] EWHC 2487 (Ch). The case now turned to the question of costs.

Mr Horler was seeking amongst other things, to stay execution of enforcement of the adverse costs that he was ordered to pay.

The argument that Mr Horler should not pay the costs from commencement was rejected. Any late disclosure was considered to have made no difference as to the continuation of the proceedings.

It was suggested that a further application was proposed, such as an application to the Court of Appeal for permission. This was point rejected from the vantage point of seeking to delay enforcement of the costs order.

The case highlights the point that after judgment has been handed down, it is seemingly wise to get on with any further applications expeditiously. The Court was not minded to grant a lot of extra time to enable the Applicant to make applications now, that they could have made at an earlier juncture, notably saying that “Counsel’s convenience” was not grounds for delaying the Respondent’s right to enforce its costs, although an inference might arguably be drawn that it could be the basis for a few days.

Extracts from the judgment:

Leave a Comment