Small v Martin & Anor [2006] EWHC 126 (TCC) (2 February 2006)

Small v Martin & Anor [2006] EWHC 126 (TCC) (2 February 2006)

Mr. Small's conduct, including orchestrating harassment and lying to the court, constituted a cynical and dishonest abuse of process that distorted both the harassment and building claims. This justified awarding indemnity costs against him in both actions, regardless of partial success in the building claim. Part 36 offers made by Mr. Small were not genuine or effective, and Mr. Martin's conduct was not such as to deprive him of costs. Mr. Fenton, while less culpable, participated in the deception and is jointly liable for indemnity costs in the harassment claim, with apportionment as specified.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 126 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Philip Small; First Defendant: Andrew Martin; Second Defendant: James Fenton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (building Claim and Harassment Claim) / Post Trial, Costs Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Mr. Martin against Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton on the harassment claim; judgment for Mr. Small against Mr. Martin on the building claim; indemnity costs orders against Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton as specified; permanent injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Costs, Harassment, Building Disputes, Injunctions, Part 36 Offers, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Tort Contract Costs Harassment Building Disputes Injunctions Part 36 Offers +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Small

Claimant

Andrew Martin

First Defendant

James Fenton

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (building Claim and Harassment Claim) / Post Trial, Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the parties, particularly Mr. Small, amounted to an abuse of process affecting costs orders in both building and harassment claims
  2. 2 Whether Part 36 offers made by the parties should affect the allocation of costs
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton for their conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Small's conduct, including orchestrating harassment and lying to the court, constituted a cynical and dishonest abuse of process that distorted both the harassment and building claims. This justified awarding indemnity costs against him in both actions, regardless of partial success in the building claim. Part 36 offers made by Mr. Small were not genuine or effective, and Mr. Martin's conduct was not such as to deprive him of costs. Mr. Fenton, while less culpable, participated in the deception and is jointly liable for indemnity costs in the harassment claim, with apportionment as specified.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Mr. Martin against Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton on the harassment claim; judgment for Mr. Small against Mr. Martin on the building claim; indemnity costs orders against Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton as specified; permanent injunction granted.

Orders

  • Judgment for Mr. Martin against Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton on the harassment claim in the sum of £12,256 plus interest to be assessed, joint and several liability.
  • Damages in the harassment claim apportioned 60% to Mr. Small, 40% to Mr. Fenton.