Bovis Lend Lease v Wily

In the case of Bovis Lend Lease v Wily, the plaintiff sought to challenge the costs orders made against the defendant, who was the deed administrator of a company. The dispute arose in the context of a corporate voluntary administration and subsequent winding up of the company. The court was tasked with determining whether the costs orders should be limited to the company's assets, whether the deed administrator was entitled to be indemnified for those costs, and whether the deed administrator should be personally required to pay the costs.

The central legal issues that the court needed to resolve included the extent of the liability of the deed administrator for the costs incurred, the applicability of the principle that costs follow the event, and the implications of the deed administrator's role and responsibilities. The court considered whether the deed administrator, having acted within the scope of their duties, could be held personally liable for the costs beyond the company's assets and whether they were entitled to indemnification.

In reaching its decision, the court held that the costs orders should indeed be limited to the assets of the company and that the deed administrator was not entitled to be indemnified for the costs. Furthermore, the court determined that the deed administrator should not be required to pay the costs personally. The reasoning was grounded in the principle that the deed administrator's role was to manage the company's affairs during the administration process, and personal liability beyond the company's assets would undermine the purpose of limiting the liability of administrators. The court found that the costs incurred were appropriately tied to the company's affairs and did not extend to personal liability of the deed administrator.

Consequently, the court made orders that the costs incurred were to be paid from the company's assets, the deed administrator was not to be indemnified for these costs, and the deed administrator was not to be held personally liable beyond the company's assets. This decision provided clarity on the extent of liability for deed administrators in such situations and reinforced the principle that the costs of litigation should follow the event, in this case, the company.