Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 218 (Mar)
Court: Chancery Division

Field J

Representation Jonathan Arkush (instructed by Phillipsohn Crawfords Berwald) for the appellant.
  Edward Cohen (instructed by Salans Hertzfeld & Heilbronn) for the respondents.
Judgment Dates: 14 March 2002


Trust and trustee - Breach of trust - Misappropriation of trust moneys - Claimants obtaining judgment against appellant for breaches of trust - Appellant bringing counterclaim against claimants - Claimants applying for appellant's counterclaim to be struck out or stayed - Master staying counterclaim - Appellant appealing master's order - Claimants cross-appealing - Whether appeal should be allowed - Whether cross-appeal should be allowed.

The Case

In the instant case, a decision on case management grounds whether to strike out the counterclaim or stay it until the whole of the judgment debt had been paid required a consideration not only of the appellant's conduct in the litigation but also of the cogency of the claims made in the counterclaim, and the benefit there would be for the appellant if it were tried out. Taking that approach, it was clear that the appellant's conduct of the litigation justified at least a stay until he had paid to the claimants the assessed costs awarded against him.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.