F J Architects Ltd v Evans Of Leeds Ltd & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1785 (26 November 2002)

F J Architects Ltd v Evans Of Leeds Ltd & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1785 (26 November 2002)

The judge exercised his discretion properly in awarding costs, taking into account all relevant factors including the limited success on the copyright claim and the disproportion between the amount claimed and awarded. The decision was within the permissible range of judicial discretion.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1785
Parties
Claimant/respondent: F J Architects Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Evans of Leeds Limited; Defendant/applicant: Caddick Developments; Defendant/applicant: Anthony Lightowler; Defendant/applicant: Carey Jones Architects Limited; Defendant/applicant: Airebank Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Order)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Conversion
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Employment Law Costs Copyright Infringement Breach of Contract Inducement of 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F J Architects Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Evans of Leeds Limited

Defendant/applicant

Caddick Developments

Defendant/applicant

Anthony Lightowler

Defendant/applicant

Carey Jones Architects Limited

Defendant/applicant

Airebank Developments Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's costs order relating to the copyright claim was outside the proper exercise of discretion
  2. 2 Whether the substantial reduction in costs awarded was appropriate given the disparity between the amount claimed and the amount awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised his discretion properly in awarding costs, taking into account all relevant factors including the limited success on the copyright claim and the disproportion between the amount claimed and awarded. The decision was within the permissible range of judicial discretion.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused