Pearce v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1856 (23 November 2001)

Pearce v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1856 (23 November 2001)

The judge did not exceed the proper ambit of her discretion in making the costs order, as she considered the conduct of the proceedings and the overall outcome, and requiring the defendant to pay 60% of the claimant's costs was not excessive.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1856
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Keith Terence Pearce; Defendant/respondent: Lloyds TSB Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Costs Order
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Appeals, Discretion of Judge
Civil Procedure Costs Appeals Discretion of Judge

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Terence Pearce

Claimant/appellant

Lloyds TSB Bank PLC

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order made by the judge was within the proper ambit of judicial discretion
  2. 2 Whether the costs order properly reflected the substantive findings and orders

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not exceed the proper ambit of her discretion in making the costs order, as she considered the conduct of the proceedings and the overall outcome, and requiring the defendant to pay 60% of the claimant's costs was not excessive.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Bank to receive 90% of the costs of the appeal