Case No: 34 of 2015
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 3140 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY

Leeds Combined Court
1 Oxford Row
Leeds 
LS1 

Date: 28/10/2015

Before :

MR JUSTICE NORRIS
VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE COUNTY PALATINE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	Barclays Bank Plc
(Trading as Barclays Global Payment Acceptance)	Petitioner	
	- and -		
	(1)	The Registrar of Companies
(2)	Client Connection Limited
(3)	Gagen Dulari Sharma	Respondents	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Steven Fennell (instructed by Eversheds) for the Petitioner
Louis Doyle (instructed by Saints Solicitors) for the Third Respondent

Written submissions dated 8 & 15 October 2015 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Mr Justice Norris: 
1.	I must now deal with the question of costs.
2.	Mrs Sharma applied for a rescission of the order restoring Client Connection Limited (“the Company”) to the register for the purpose of it being wound up, the object of the winding up being that a liquidator would conduct investigations into dealings with the Company’s property in the year or so before it entered administration. In order to facilitate that investigation and to assist in the prosecution of claims under the Insolvency Act 1986 the petitioning creditor sought a backdating of the presentation of the petition, an application which I did not grant in full. Mrs Sharma was therefore unsuccessful in her application: the petitioning creditor was partially successful in its application (despite opposition from Mrs Sharma). 
3.	The two applications were (as the judgment recognises) inter-related. The evidence deployed and responded to on each application was essentially the same. For the purposes of making a costs order it makes sense to treat Mrs Sharma’s application and the adjourned petition as a single application (although the applications might have to be looked at separately when considering what single order should be made). 
4.	Overall the petitioning creditor was the successful party. Under the general rule in CPR 44.2(2)(a) Mrs Sharma would be ordered to pay the costs of the petitioning creditor both of her failed hostile application and of the petitioning creditor’s application for class relief (part of which Mrs Sharma opposed for personal reasons). 
5.	Under CPR 44.2(4) I must, in deciding what order to make about costs, have regard to all the circumstances. Having considered all the circumstances I am satisfied that Mrs Sharma ought to pay to Barclays the costs fairly attributable to its response to her own hostile rescission application and to her particular opposition to the class remedy sought by the petitioning creditor (though not those costs which would have been incurred even if she had not appeared). 
6.	Having decided upon that approach CPR 44.2(6)(b) indicates that I may make an order in a stated amount in respect of the petitioning creditor’s costs. 
7.	I have considered the statement of costs lodged on behalf of Barclays and dated 1 July 2015. It is in the total sum of £9218.00 + VAT. I am satisfied having considered each item on that schedule that Mrs Sharma should by 4.00pm 16 November 2015 pay to the petitioning creditor the sum of £3875.00 + VAT in respect of the petitioning creditor’s costs of opposing her rescission application and in meeting her opposition to the relief sought on the adjourned petition. The balance of Barclay’s costs shall be treated as petitioner’s costs of the petition and paid as an expense of the liquidation.