The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick Doyle’s appeal and affirmed the High Court order concerning a lis pendens registered in relation to property. In a further judgment on costs and a requested stay, the court ordered Doyle to pay John Coulston’s costs of the appeal, including the costs submission, to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree.
The court had delivered its substantive appeal judgment on 26 July 2024, concluding that the appeal should be dismissed. It then gave Doyle an opportunity to make written submissions on costs. His solicitors posted a submission on 10 September, which arrived the next day. Coulston’s solicitors did not object that it was late or that it was not sent to them until 20 September.
Doyle argued that Coulston’s appeal costs should be reduced to 75%. He said the court had rejected some of Coulston’s arguments and had not dealt with Doyle’s third ground of appeal. The court rejected that account of the judgment: it said the third ground had been addressed, and that the issue identified as “a matter for another day” concerned anticipated objections in possible further proceedings. The appeal concerned whether the High Court had erred in deciding the issue before it.
The court said Coulston had entirely succeeded in resisting the appeal and was presumptively entitled to costs under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It found no basis to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The appeal had been heard in half a day, and there was no suggestion that the arguments Doyle identified had increased the overall costs.
Doyle also sought a stay of final orders while he pursued an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, referring to an inherent-jurisdiction point and the receiver’s standing. The court found no arguable ground of appeal. It noted that the High Court had found the lis pendens registration to be an abuse of process, and that there had been no appeal against that finding or against the High Court’s refusal of a stay pending the Court of Appeal proceedings. The court refused to facilitate what it described as a continued abuse of process.
The court made no stay order on costs, noting there was no suggestion the bill would be assessed before any leave application was determined. The substantive appeal dismissal and affirmance of the High Court order remained in force.