Virdee v Virdi & Ors

Virdee v Virdi & Ors

The judge's decision to award costs in the case, rather than immediate and unconditional costs, was within his discretion. The court cannot be criticised for not making an immediate order for costs where the substantive application was settled by consent and the full merits were not argued.

Parties
Claimant/applicant; First Defendant/applicant: Davinder Singh Virdee; Defendant/respondent: Amritpal Singh Virdi; Defendant/respondent: Swarab Singh Virdee; Defendant/respondent; Claimant/respondent: Parmjit Singh Virdi; Defendant/respondent: Ramnik Kaour Virdi; Defendant/respondent: Robert Pick; Claimant/respondent: Swaran Singh Virdee; Second Defendant: Sardar Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Discretion of the Court, Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Costs Discretion of the Court Interlocutory Applications

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davinder Singh Virdee

Claimant/applicant; First Defendant/applicant

Amritpal Singh Virdi

Defendant/respondent

Swarab Singh Virdee

Defendant/respondent

Parmjit Singh Virdi

Defendant/respondent; Claimant/respondent

Ramnik Kaour Virdi

Defendant/respondent

Robert Pick

Defendant/respondent

Swaran Singh Virdee

Claimant/respondent

Sardar Investments Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in exercising his discretion on costs by not awarding immediate and unconditional costs to the applicant after a Tomlin order was agreed
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to award immediate costs was a proper exercise of judicial discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to award costs in the case, rather than immediate and unconditional costs, was within his discretion. The court cannot be criticised for not making an immediate order for costs where the substantive application was settled by consent and the full merits were not argued.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Applications for permission to appeal refused