Murphy v Countryside In Partnership With Hunters Plc

Murphy v Countryside In Partnership With Hunters Plc

The Court of Appeal held that the criticisms of the defendant's conduct by the trial judge, whether considered individually or collectively, did not justify a departure from the normal rule that the successful party should be awarded its costs. The judge's decision to make no order as to costs was wrong in principle and could not be supported by the findings or the conduct of the litigation.

Parties
Defendant/appellant: Countryside In Partnership with Hunters PLC; Claimant/respondent: Mrs Barbara Murphy (deceased) / Mr Murphy (as successor)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Costs After Dismissal of Negligence Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Negligence, Litigation Conduct, Multi Track Proceedings
Civil Procedure Tort Law Costs Negligence Litigation Conduct Multi Track Proceedings

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

Countryside In Partnership with Hunters PLC

Defendant/appellant

Mrs Barbara Murphy (deceased) / Mr Murphy (as successor)

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Costs After Dismissal of Negligence Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in principle by making no order as to costs in favour of the successful defendant after dismissing the claimant's negligence claim
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct of litigation justified departure from the general rule on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the criticisms of the defendant's conduct by the trial judge, whether considered individually or collectively, did not justify a departure from the normal rule that the successful party should be awarded its costs. The judge's decision to make no order as to costs was wrong in principle and could not be supported by the findings or the conduct of the litigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for costs below in favour of Countryside In Partnership with Hunters PLC