StaffCo Direct Limited v Ashley Burton & Ors [2022] EWHC 289 (Ch)

If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved[2022] EWHC 289 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
Venue Rolls Building, Fetter LaneDate Wednesday, 12 January 2022
London EC4A 1NL
MRS JUSTICE JOANNA SMITHSTAFFCO DIRECT LIMITED ClaimantASHLEY BURTONMIDAS RECRUITMENT GROUP LIMITEDMIDAS GROUP LIMITEDWH BARLEY (TRANSPORT & STORAGE) LIMITED Defendants_________MR P. MITCHELL QC (instructed by Geoffrey Leaver Solicitors) appeared for Claimant.MR M. ISLAM-CHOUDHURY (instructed by Franklins Solicitors LLP) appeared for First and Third Defendants._________JUDGMENT(via Microsoft Teams)
[1]This is an application for costs following a consent order, that I am going to make and that has been agreed to by the parties, in relation to a disclosure application made by the claimant on 21 December 2021. For present purposes I do not need to go into the history of that application.[2]I am now being asked to make an order for costs in the claimant’s favour in light of the fact that the defendant has now agreed to provide disclosure, almost in the terms that were sought in the original application.[3]In my judgment, the appropriate order is that the claimant should have its costs of the disclosure application.[4]Much of what was sought by way of disclosure has been consented to, as Mr Mitchell rightly says, and my overall impression, from the documents that I have been taken to during the course of argument, is that the defendant has not been as forthcoming as he should have been in complying with the orders for disclosure already made against him. Furthermore, there has been correspondence from the claimant’s solicitors seeking disclosure, which has gone unanswered.[5]Some disclosure has now been volunteered, on 10 January, and that has led to the consent order that has been made.[6]In the course of his submissions, Mr Islam-Choudhury criticised the claimant’s approach to the application as being “heavy-handed” but, given the admitted lies on the part of the defendant in the proceedings, it is perhaps unsurprising that the claimant has remained very suspicious of the defendant’s conduct. It does seem to me that there was an obvious need, in those circumstances, for the defendant to have been rather more cooperative in volunteering information than he has been to date.[7]In the circumstances, I will make an order in the claimant’s favour in relation to costs. 8. __________ CERTIFICATE Opus 2 International Limited hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete record of the Judgment or part thereof. Transcribed by Opus 2 International Limited Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BFTel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 civil@opus2.digital This transcript is approved by the Judge