Black Horse Ltd v Dickinson [2011] EW Misc 22 (CC) (16 December 2011)

Black Horse Ltd v Dickinson [2011] EW Misc 22 (CC) (16 December 2011)

The District Judge erred by taking into account the interests of the Respondents' solicitors under the CFA when refusing set-off. The claims were closely connected, arising from the same credit agreement, and it was just to allow set-off of the Appellant's money judgment against the Respondents' costs. The appeal was allowed and set-off ordered.

Citation
[2011] EW Misc 22 (CC)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Black Horse Ltd; Respondents/claimants: [Respondents' Names Not Provided]
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Assessment of Costs and Refusal of Set Off
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Set Off, Equitable Set Off, Summary Assessment, Payment Protection Insurance (ppi), Credit Agreements
Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Set Off Equitable Set Off Summary Assessment Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Credit Agreements

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Black Horse Ltd

Appellant/defendant

[Respondents' Names Not Provided]

Respondents/claimants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Assessment of Costs and Refusal of Set Off

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in refusing to allow set-off of the Appellant's money judgment against the Respondents' costs in PPI proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a CFA and the interests of the Respondents' solicitors were relevant to the exercise of discretion on set-off
  3. 3 Whether the claims were sufficiently closely connected to justify set-off

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred by taking into account the interests of the Respondents' solicitors under the CFA when refusing set-off. The claims were closely connected, arising from the same credit agreement, and it was just to allow set-off of the Appellant's money judgment against the Respondents' costs. The appeal was allowed and set-off ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 3 of the District Judge's order is varied to permit set-off: 'The Defendants shall pay the Claimants' costs summarily assessed in the sum of £29,650.50 and the Defendants shall be entitled to set-off their money judgment in claim number 0PB14739 against this Order.'
  • Respondents to pay Appellant's costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at £6,000.