Oberholster v Little & Anor [2020] EWHC 2635 (QB) (06 October 2020)

Oberholster v Little & Anor [2020] EWHC 2635 (QB) (06 October 2020)

The judge was entitled, on a summary determination with parties' consent, to order D8 to pay C's costs, as the claims against D2 and D8 were inextricably linked, D8's duty regarding consent was non-delegable, and there was no error of principle or manifest injustice in the exercise of discretion. The absence of a trial did not preclude a costs order, and alternative orders (Bullock/Sanderson or no order as to costs) were not required.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2635
Parties
Appellant/eighth Defendant: Doctor Andre Oberholster; First Respondent/claimant: Ms Jayne Little; Second Respondent/second Defendant: Optical Express Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order Following Settlement of Substantive Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Summary Determination of Costs, Informed Consent, Non Delegable Duty, Bullock/sanderson Orders, Part 36 Offers
Civil Procedure Medical Law Costs Summary Determination of Costs Informed Consent Non Delegable Duty Bullock/sanderson Orders Part 36 Offers

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

Parties

Doctor Andre Oberholster

Appellant/eighth Defendant

Ms Jayne Little

First Respondent/claimant

Optical Express Limited

Second Respondent/second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order Following Settlement of Substantive Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in ordering the Eighth Defendant to pay the Claimant's costs after settlement with the Second Defendant
  2. 2 Whether a summary determination of costs was appropriate without a trial
  3. 3 Whether the Eighth Defendant was the successful party

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled, on a summary determination with parties' consent, to order D8 to pay C's costs, as the claims against D2 and D8 were inextricably linked, D8's duty regarding consent was non-delegable, and there was no error of principle or manifest injustice in the exercise of discretion. The absence of a trial did not preclude a costs order, and alternative orders (Bullock/Sanderson or no order as to costs) were not required.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Eighth Defendant to pay Claimant's costs as between Claimant and Eighth Defendant