Invenia Technical Computing Corporation and Invenia Labs Limited vs Matthew Hudson

This case concerned a dispute between Invenia Technical Computing Corporation and Invenia Labs Limited (the Applicants) and Mr. Matthew Hudson (the Respondent) regarding the presentation of winding-up petitions based on statutory demands.

TLDR:

• Applicants sought to restrain the presentation of winding-up petitions.
• Respondent filed multiple applications, including for relief from sanctions and to strike out the injunction application.
• The court ruled in favor of the Applicants, awarding costs on both standard and indemnity bases.

The Applicants, Invenia Technical Computing Corporation and Invenia Labs Limited, filed an application to restrain the presentation of winding-up petitions based on five statutory demands served by the Respondent, Mr. Matthew Hudson. The statutory demands were related to various financial claims including severance payments and share repurchases.

At hearings on 30 January and 14 February 2024, the court considered multiple related applications, including the Respondent's applications for relief from sanctions, adjournment, and to strike out the injunction application. The court found that the Respondent's applications were largely without merit and ordered him to pay the Applicants' costs.

The court emphasized that costs generally follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party. The court also noted that the Respondent's conduct in filing numerous applications and making serious unsubstantiated allegations warranted an order for indemnity costs in some instances.

The court further discussed the refusal to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), stating that a party may be denied costs if they unreasonably refuse to participate in mediation. However, the court found that the Applicants had not unreasonably refused ADR.

In conclusion, the court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicants' costs of the various applications, with some costs awarded on the indemnity basis due to the Respondent's conduct. The court also granted interim costs to be paid by the Respondent.

Legal representatives: Mr. Ram Lakshman (instructed by Mishcon De Reya LLP) for the Applicants, The Respondent appeared in person.

Judicial Panel: ICC Judge Barber

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch)