Jolly v Jay & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 277 (7th March, 2002)

Jolly v Jay & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 277 (7th March, 2002)

The court held that while respondents may be awarded costs for attending a permission hearing if their attendance is justified (e.g., to correct material inaccuracies or address threshold issues), such costs are at the discretion of the judge and should not be awarded for submissions on the merits unless specifically directed. In this case, once Mr Jolly withdrew his application and offered to pay standard costs up to a certain point, the respondents were not entitled to further costs for insisting on a hearing or additional undertakings.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 277
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Christopher Morton Jolly; Defendant/respondent: David Edward Jay; Defendant/respondent: Linda Anne Jay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal; Costs Order Following Refusal of Permission
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs orders made as specified.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Costs, Permission to Appeal, Rectification of Register, Land Registration
Civil Procedure Property Law Appeals Costs Permission to Appeal Rectification of Register Land Registration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Morton Jolly

Claimant/appellant

David Edward Jay

Defendant/respondent

Linda Anne Jay

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal; Costs Order Following Refusal of Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a respondent is entitled to costs after successfully resisting an application for permission to appeal
  2. 2 Proper approach to costs orders at oral hearings for permission to appeal under CPR Part 52
  3. 3 Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to entertain appeals against costs orders made on refusal of permission to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while respondents may be awarded costs for attending a permission hearing if their attendance is justified (e.g., to correct material inaccuracies or address threshold issues), such costs are at the discretion of the judge and should not be awarded for submissions on the merits unless specifically directed. In this case, once Mr Jolly withdrew his application and offered to pay standard costs up to a certain point, the respondents were not entitled to further costs for insisting on a hearing or additional undertakings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs orders made as specified.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondents' costs of the application up to 12.00 noon on 6 February 2002.
  • Respondents to pay appellant's costs incurred after 12.00 noon on 6 February 2002.