The Court of Appeal ordered Paul Coyle to pay, in the first instance, the respondent’s costs of three unsuccessful appeals arising from the liquidation of Decobake Limited. Any shortfall after enforcement is to be paid from the liquidation. The costs are to be assessed by a legal costs adjudicator.
In a costs judgment delivered on 26 January 2022, the court also refused Coyle’s request to make the costs payable solely from the liquidation and rejected his application for a stay. The ruling addresses the costs of the appeals; it does not determine the separate dispute over ownership of intellectual property and products associated with the company.
The appeals had been dismissed in the court’s principal judgment of 13 October 2021. They concerned the High Court’s fixing of remuneration for the respondent as provisional liquidator, its refusal of Coyle’s discovery application, and its refusal to postpone the fee approval application until related proceedings were resolved. The costs judgment says the High Court costs orders were not challenged.
The respondent sought an order that Coyle pay the appeal costs personally, with any unrecovered balance payable from the liquidation. Coyle opposed personal liability, arguing that costs should come from the liquidation. Alternatively, he sought a stay until the separate plenary proceedings concerning intellectual property and products were decided.
The court said the respondent had been entirely successful in the appeals. Applying section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, it treated the successful party’s entitlement to costs as the starting point, subject to the court’s discretion. It concluded that creditors should not bear the appeal costs in the first instance. The judgment said Coyle had not focused his opposition on the evidence supporting the fees or their amount, and had instead raised grievances and challenged the provisional liquidator’s appointment and conduct.
Coyle also argued that he was a creditor and a “legitimus contradictor”—a person entitled to oppose an application—and raised complaints about his opportunity to be heard, alleged non-disclosure and other matters. The court rejected those arguments as grounds to depart from the costs starting point. It said he had been given opportunities to make oral and written submissions, and that the complaints did not establish relevant conduct by the respondent that would justify a different costs order.
The court declined to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, finding they had no bearing on the remaining costs issue. It also refused a stay, saying there was no good reason to delay assessment and recovery of the costs until the separate proceedings concluded.