Darougar v Belcher (t/a Park Street Garage) [2002] EWCA Civ 1262 (25 July 2002)

Darougar v Belcher (t/a Park Street Garage) [2002] EWCA Civ 1262 (25 July 2002)

The Recorder failed to properly weigh the abandonment of the misrepresentation claim and the overall success of the appellant after 15 February 1999. The costs order should reflect that the respondent only succeeded to a minor extent after that date, and the appellant was the overall winner. The proper order is for the respondent to pay half of the appellant's costs after 15 February 1999.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1262
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Dayshad Darougar; Defendant/appellant: Belcher t/a Park Street Garage
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs order varied.
Legal Topics
Costs, Repairer's Lien, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Conversion
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Costs Repairer's Lien Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Conversion

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dayshad Darougar

Claimant/respondent

Belcher t/a Park Street Garage

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order made by the Recorder was correct in light of the abandonment of the misrepresentation claim and the partial success on damages for poor workmanship
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to costs after 15 February 1999 given the outcome of the litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder failed to properly weigh the abandonment of the misrepresentation claim and the overall success of the appellant after 15 February 1999. The costs order should reflect that the respondent only succeeded to a minor extent after that date, and the appellant was the overall winner. The proper order is for the respondent to pay half of the appellant's costs after 15 February 1999.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs order varied.

Orders

  • Costs up to 15 February 1999 remain payable by appellant to respondent.
  • Respondent to pay half of appellant's costs after 15 February 1999.