Ryan Michael Davies (As Liquidator of Shapeshift Global Limited) v BSV Claims Limited [2026] EWHC 445 (Ch)
[1]The starting point on this application is that costs should be in the application because it is a case management decision of mine that this case ought to be heard together with the Novalpina appeal. It was clear from the moment this application was launched that a direction of some sort from the court was needed. The position today is that even to adjourn the application I have to make a holding order to give the liquidator some protection against some of the concerns which have been expressed as to his exposure. So a hearing of some kind was required.[2]Mr Robinson's point (which was that this could have been a much shorter, much cheaper hearing, which his client need not have been involved in) is one which may be right, but from what I have heard, neither side attempted to find the solution which has been found today. They put their heads down and concentrated on getting into court today. An observer may criticise that approach, but I do not think either side can criticise the other when they did not attempt themselves to find that solution.[3]It is not entirely fair for Mr Robinson to say that his side did not understand the importance of the Novalpina judgment. It is clear from the bundle and the papers that the Novalpina decision is central to the issues which have to be decided on this application. So, for all of those reasons, I am going to order that costs will be in the application.[4]One point which Mr Robinson makes is an absence of pre-commencement correspondence. I note that a similar point is made against his client in relation to the commencement of the CAT proceedings. That is an argument or a consideration which can be put before the judge who has to decide how to deal with the costs of the application at the end of the day, at which point that judge can also take into account the outcome of the application. At that point it will be a legitimate consideration to take into account whether the appropriate steps pre-application were taken.[5]Costs in the application. ----------------------------------------------------- (This Judgment has been approved by the Judge.) Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd 2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP Telephone No: 020 7067 2900 DX: 410 LDE Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com