The Court dismissed an application by a successful respondent for a non-party costs order against the directors of the unsuccessful corporate applicant, holding that the directors were not the 'real party' to the litigation because the company (not the directors) owned the trade marks in dispute and the directors' interest went no further than advancing the company's rights. The Court held that it is not sufficient to render directors liable for costs merely that they controlled and funded an unsuccessful corporate litigant; where proceedings are brought bona fide for the company's benefit, the company remains the real plaintiff. The Court also held that the respondent's failure to apply promptly for security for costs and failure to seek additional security when costs significantly exceeded initial estimates weighed against making a non-party costs order, and that allegations of 'phoenixing' through a pre-liquidation asset sale were insufficiently particularised and unsupported where assets were sold at independently valued amounts.
The full text is available to signed-in members.