Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors

A party cannot avoid compliance with an order by asserting a practical or legal difficulty which the evidence does not establish. A minor party may be bound by an order where properly represented and the order was sought and made on that party’s behalf. The court may refuse a permanent stay of an unqualified costs order where later non-compliance has not prejudiced the other party or impaired the administration of justice. Denial of access to enforcement processes for contempt is exceptional and requires a connection between the contempt and the risk that justice will not be done.

The claimant applied for a permanent stay preventing the second to seventh defendants from enforcing costs orders made in their favour. The second to seventh defendants applied to amend an earlier order requiring them to send HMRC a transcript of an earlier judgment and an explanation of the tax treatment of trust income, and sought to set aside later compliance and enforcement directions.

The court considered whether the defendants could comply with the earlier order, whether the order should be amended because the first defendant was said to be responsible for the tax affairs, and whether the defendants’ subsequent non-compliance justified a permanent stay of their costs entitlement.

1. The defendants’ application was dismissed. The second to seventh defendants could obtain and send the transcript, explain the treatment of the income to HMRC, and provide the court with a copy. They had identified no practical or legal impediment. They were not required to explain matters of which they had no knowledge, but that qualification did not prevent compliance.
2. The seventh defendant’s minority did not prevent the order being made against him. He was a party represented by a litigation friend, and solicitors and counsel had acted on his behalf when the order was sought and drafted.
3. There was no slip in the earlier order and no basis had been shown for amending it. The defendants were bound by the actions and statements of their solicitors in the litigation. The later orders fixing compliance dates were reasonable when made and there was no reason to set them aside.
4. The application was certified as totally without merit. The claimant received her costs on the indemnity basis. Permission to appeal was refused because an appeal had no real prospect of success and there was no other compelling reason to grant permission.
5. The claimant’s application for a permanent stay of the defendants’ costs orders was refused. The costs orders were unqualified and were not conditional on compliance with the information order, which had been made in the public interest. The defendants’ misconduct had not affected the claimant or prevented justice being done to her.
6. Although the court may deny access to its processes to a contemnor where the contempt could prevent justice being done to the other party, that exceptional power did not apply here. The court would not use a permanent stay under CPR 40.8A, or the enforcement jurisdiction, to deprive the defendants of their costs entitlement merely because of their bad behaviour. The court itself would instead send the relevant judgments to HMRC.