Biddick v Biddick & Ors [2025] EWHC 2743 (Ch) (27 October 2025)

Biddick v Biddick & Ors [2025] EWHC 2743 (Ch) (27 October 2025)

The defendants were the successful party in the application to enforce the settlement, as the claimant's conduct caused delay and sought to introduce new terms after acceptance. The application was justified and not premature. The general rule on costs applies, and the claimant must pay the defendants' costs.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2743 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Matthew Peter George Biddick; Defendant/applicant: Peter Biddick; Defendant/applicant: Margaret Rose Biddick; Defendant/applicant: John Carson Biddick
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment Following Proprietary Estoppel and Partnership Dispute / Post Settlement, Costs Determination After Enforcement Application
Outcome
Claimant ordered to pay defendants' costs of the application.
Legal Topics
Costs, Proprietary Estoppel, Partnerships, Settlement Enforcement, CPR Part 36, Summary Assessment
Civil Procedure Property Law Trusts and Estates Costs Proprietary Estoppel Partnerships Settlement Enforcement CPR Part 36 +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Peter George Biddick

Claimant/respondent

Peter Biddick

Defendant/applicant

Margaret Rose Biddick

Defendant/applicant

John Carson Biddick

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Costs Judgment Following Proprietary Estoppel and Partnership Dispute / Post Settlement, Costs Determination After Enforcement Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the defendants' application to enforce settlement terms after a CPR Part 36 offer was accepted?
  2. 2 Was the defendants' application premature or justified?
  3. 3 Did the claimant fail to honour the settlement terms?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were the successful party in the application to enforce the settlement, as the claimant's conduct caused delay and sought to introduce new terms after acceptance. The application was justified and not premature. The general rule on costs applies, and the claimant must pay the defendants' costs.

Court Disposition

Claimant ordered to pay defendants' costs of the application.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay defendants' costs on the standard basis, summarily assessed at £30,750 (including counsel's fees) and other disbursements of £539, payable within 14 days.