After protracted, complicated and bitter litigation, ‘To put the matter quite briefly, Mr and Mrs Rogers’s solicitors appear to be taking advantage rightly or wrongly – and if they have a legal right to do so, of course they have a right to do so – of the fact that these two sets of proceedings, all tied up intimately with the same subject-matter, have been going along side by side, and the proceedings which the Freeguards have been winning – being the proceedings before the Chancery master and in this court – have got out of kilter with the others, so that Mr and Mrs Rogers are seeking to enforce orders for costs made in their favour without Mr and Mrs Freeguards having the opportunity to set off against those costs orders for costs made in their favour. Added to that there is the oddity that the transfer is as of now being effectively blocked by Mr and Mrs Rogers seeking to enforce an order for costs amounting to over 12,000 pounds when taxed, which was ordered not to be enforced without leave. We have seen no order by the county court granting leave, and certainly Mr and Mrs Freeguards were never put on any notice at all that an application was going to be made to seek leave to enforce it, added to which Mr and Mrs Rogers seek to be enforcing an order for costs in their favour in this court, which was expressly ordered to be set off against the order for costs made in favour of Mr and Mrs Freeguard.’ The court made orders for the future orderly conduct of the matters.
Citations:
[1999] EWCA Civ 1154
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Freeguard v Rogers CA 26-Jan-1999
Judgment had been obtained. An order was in preparation for specific performance of an option over land. The parties were unable to agree the form of the order, and it was relisted.
Held: The Freeguards’ objections to the proposed form had no . .
See Also – Rogers and Another v Freeguard and Another CA 19-Oct-1998
The parties had drawn up and executed an option agreement. When a court considered an option to purchase ‘land known as . .’, it was able to consider extrinsic evidence to establish just what was included where the identification in the deed was . .
Cited by:
See Also – Freeguard v Rogers CA 26-Jan-1999
Judgment had been obtained. An order was in preparation for specific performance of an option over land. The parties were unable to agree the form of the order, and it was relisted.
Held: The Freeguards’ objections to the proposed form had no . .
See Also – Rogers and Another v Freeguard and Another CA 19-Oct-1998
The parties had drawn up and executed an option agreement. When a court considered an option to purchase ‘land known as . .’, it was able to consider extrinsic evidence to establish just what was included where the identification in the deed was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.146069