Young v Chief Constable of the Warwickshire Police & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 447 (QB) (02 March 2022)

Young v Chief Constable of the Warwickshire Police & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 447 (QB) (02 March 2022)

The court held that the Appellant's claim was doomed due to failure to plead foresight of damage, a serious omission. The conduct of the Respondents did not amount to such reprehensible conduct as to justify departure from the general rule. The Appellant's refusal to engage in ADR and the high-risk nature of the litigation further supported the decision that the Appellant should pay the Respondents' costs.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 447
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Seymour Young; 1st Respondent/defendant: The Chief Constable of the Warwickshire Police; 2nd Respondent/defendant: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim / Post Judgment, Costs Adjudication
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs order against Appellant upheld
Legal Topics
Costs, Striking Out, Disclosure, ADR
Civil Procedure Misfeasance in Public Office Costs Striking Out Disclosure ADR

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seymour Young

Appellant/claimant

The Chief Constable of the Warwickshire Police

1st Respondent/defendant

The Director of Public Prosecutions

2nd Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim / Post Judgment, Costs Adjudication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the general rule after dismissal of appeal
  2. 2 Whether conduct of Respondents justifies departure from general rule on costs
  3. 3 Jurisdiction to make costs order on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Appellant's claim was doomed due to failure to plead foresight of damage, a serious omission. The conduct of the Respondents did not amount to such reprehensible conduct as to justify departure from the general rule. The Appellant's refusal to engage in ADR and the high-risk nature of the litigation further supported the decision that the Appellant should pay the Respondents' costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs order against Appellant upheld

Orders

  • Appellant ordered to pay Respondents' costs of the appeal
  • Costs order made by Master Davison stands