header-logo header-logo

13 June 2019 / Graeme Kirk
Issue: 7844 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

A (costly) flawed procedure?

Jofa  highlights a procedural problem in relation to the fair allocation of costs in the Court of Appeal, as Graeme Kirk explains

  • The decision in Jofa is indicative of a flawed procedure in the CPR which the rule committee ought to revisit.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Jofa Limited and Farah v Benherst Finance Limited and Chestone Industry Holding [2019] EWCA Civ 899 principally concerned the costs applicable where pre-action disclosure is ordered against someone who is not anticipated to be a party to proceedings—a Norwich Pharmacal order.

Jofa Limited is a small building firm, incorporated by its shareholder and director, Mr Farah, who had been the second respondent to an application for Norwich Pharmacal relief brought by overseas investors. The investors Benherst Finance Ltd and Chestone Industry Holding claimed that their money had disappeared, rather than bearing fruit in a luxury Knightsbridge development project, and wished to know from Jofa and Mr Farah, as well as from the NatWest, what had happened to it by looking at accounts and contract documents.

At

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll