Source: https://www.thomas-legal.com/case-law-blog/?byear=2014&bmonth=4
Timestamp: 2019-03-23 04:53:04
Document Index: 266075884

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 36', 'art 36', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8']

R (Crawford) v The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne [2014] EWHC 1197 (Admin)
This was a hearing to determine costs arising from a successful defence.
The Defendant submitted that it was entitled to its costs; the Claimant that there should be no order because the Defendant refused ADR.
The Defendant had agreed to mediate, subject to instructions, and the Claimant made a proposal, to which no response was made. Instead, the Defendant stated that the claim should be discontinued.
The Court held that the referral of the claim to an Ombudsman prior to proceedings was a form of mediation, and so it was reasonable for the Defendant to refuse further mediation.
It also held that the Defendant did not lose on any issues, and that although the Defendant’s guidance that led to the claim was ambiguous, it would not have prevented the claim had it been accurate.
Overall, the Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs.
Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd. & Ors v Essex Services Group Plc & Ors [2014] EWHC 1099 (TCC)
Key areas: Indemnity Basis; Basis of assessment; Part 36 offer; interest on costs; liability for costs; costs under a contract; costs indemnified by a third party; interim payment; High Court
This was a hearing to determine costs arising from a successful claim.
There were 5 separate issues on which the Claimant and First Defendant were at odds.
The first issue concerned Indemnity Basis. The Claimant had made a Part 36 offer of £4,850,000 on 12th April 2012 and at trial was awarded £4,985,686.85. The Court held that they should apply from when the offer expired, plus, in relation to the second issue, 4% interest on both damages and costs.
The third issue concerned costs of a trial bundle. The Defendant submitted that the Claimant should not be entitled to any costs due to issues relating to its preparation. The Court held that the Claimant’s costs should be reduced by £10,000, as a result.
The fourth issue concerned the split of costs relating to what was labelled “Core 2” and “Core 3”, because of how the First and Second Defendants were liable for these costs. The Court held that there should be a 30%/70% split.
The final issue concerned a payment on account, for which the Claimant was awarded £1.65 million.
The Court also held that the Second Defendant was to pay 40% of the costs relating to “Core 2”, on the Standard Basis.
The Court then turned to potential indemnity by the of the First Defendant’s costs liability, by the Second Defendant and other parties to the proceedings, which it upheld, with minor limitations.
Kershaw v Roberts; Jones [2014] EWHC 1037 (Ch)
Key areas: Part 8; costs budgets; High Court
This was an appeal from a Directions Hearing, that an earlier ruling in a claim brought under CPR 8 was not a CMC.
The Court had listed the matter for a Directions hearing, at which the case was allocated to the Multi-track.
The Claimant submitted a Costs Budget in advance of the hearing, and the Defendants served one in response, but the Court did not receive it in time.
The Claimant submitted that because one was not served the Defendants’ costs should be limited to Court fees. This was rejected.
On appeal the Claimant submitted that due to the wording of CPR 8.9(c), the hearing must have been a CMC because all Part 8 claims are allocated to the Multi-track.
The Court rejected this stating that under CPR 8.9 are “merely treated” as being Multi-track, but the Court has discretion. As a result, a case is not allocated to the Multi-track until that hearing has taken place.
The Court also stated that Note 8.0.5 of the White Book, which claims that any Part 8 claim hearing is a CMC is wrong. It also noted that amendments to CPR 3.12 from 22nd April 2014 exempted Part 8 claims from requiring Costs Budgets.
The National Guild of Removers and Storers Ltd. v Derek Milner (t/a Intransit Removals and Storage Ltd.) [2014] EWHC 1117 (IPEC)
Key areas: both parties win some issues; Patent; High Court
In the main action, the Claimant lost its claim and the Defendant won most of its counter-claim.
The Defendant conceded that its costs were to be reduced due to its loss, and submitted that this should be 25% of its claim, and only to some of the Patent Court’s stages. The Claimant submitted that because the Defendant won on issues that were not contested at trial, there should be no order as to costs, or the Defendant’s costs should be reduced by 75%.
The Court held that on the facts, the Defendant was entitled to 60% of its costs.
Key areas: service; relief from sanction; SCCO
This was an application hearing.
The Claimant had served her Bill of Costs and had obtained a Default Costs Certificate because Points of Dispute had not been served in time. Points had subsequently been served.
The Defendant submitted that service was irregular because a Notice of Change had been served via email before the Bill was served. However, the Claimant had not received it.
The Claimant submitted that under PD6A para. 4.2, permission had to be sought to serve via email, but the Defendant had not done so.
The Defendant submitted that it served documents on the Claimant via email on a regular basis, and the Claimant admitted it was having problems with its email service address.
The Court held it was served and the reasons for it not being received were the Claimant’s.
As a result, the Defendant’s Points were allowed.
National Westminster Bank plc v Lucas; Bodley; Coles; McKenna; Secretary of State for Health; BBC [2014] EWHC 1683 (Ch)
This was a hearing to determine costs issues arsing from the administration of the estate of Jimmy Savile.
The Bank sought its costs in relation to an application to remove it as the Executor. The Court held that the arguments raised in support of the application were “so clearly and unreasonably wrong” that Indemnity Basis was justified, and lost all 9 points on which it relied.
The Bank also sought its costs in relation to application to approve a Scheme of payments to third parties that had been injured by the Deceased. The Bank submitted that the Trust’s conduct led to increased costs, and so it should be liable for 80% of those costs, again on the Indemnity Basis (the remaining 20% were conceded as likely to have been incurred in any event). The Court agreed with the 80% and, again, based on the Trust’s conduct, and its refusal to engage with the other parties, allowed Indemnity Basis costs. The injured parties were also awarded their costs against the Trust on the Indemnity Basis, given the certain and obvious impact the Scheme would have upon them.