Kings Security Systems Ltd v King & Anor [2021] EWHC 653 (Ch) (19 March 2021)

Kings Security Systems Ltd v King & Anor [2021] EWHC 653 (Ch) (19 March 2021)

KSSL is entitled to its costs as the successful party. The counter-restitution argument was raised too late and should have been pleaded and evidenced at trial. The Part 36 offer was valid; the judgment was more advantageous than the offer, so KSSL is entitled to indemnity costs from 22 July 2019, enhanced interest, and an additional sum. Mr King's conduct was outside the norm, justifying indemnity costs. Payment on account of costs is appropriate.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 653 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Kings Security Systems Limited; First Defendant: Anthony Douglas King; Second Defendant: Stephen John James Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Consequential Matters Following Trial
Outcome
Costs and consequential orders granted in favour of KSSL.
Legal Topics
Costs, Rescission, Counter Restitution, Part 36 Offers, Indemnity Costs, Interest on Damages, Security for Costs
Contract Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Rescission Counter Restitution Part 36 Offers Indemnity Costs +2 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kings Security Systems Limited

Claimant

Anthony Douglas King

First Defendant

Stephen John James Evans

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Consequential Matters Following Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counter-restitution should be determined before costs order
  2. 2 Whether the quantum of damages is correct
  3. 3 From what date interest should run on damages

Ratio Decidendi

KSSL is entitled to its costs as the successful party. The counter-restitution argument was raised too late and should have been pleaded and evidenced at trial. The Part 36 offer was valid; the judgment was more advantageous than the offer, so KSSL is entitled to indemnity costs from 22 July 2019, enhanced interest, and an additional sum. Mr King's conduct was outside the norm, justifying indemnity costs. Payment on account of costs is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Costs and consequential orders granted in favour of KSSL.

Orders

  • Mr King to pay KSSL's costs, assessed on the standard basis up to 21 July 2019 and on the indemnity basis thereafter.
  • Interest on damages at 2% above base rate up to 21 July 2019, then 10% above base rate thereafter.