JAKE VEASEY v COLIN MACDOUGALL & Ors

JAKE VEASEY v COLIN MACDOUGALL & Ors

The petitioner was overall the successful party, particularly on the most important aspects of the application, and a proportionate costs order is appropriate with a 10% reduction to reflect partial failure.

Parties
Petitioner: Jake Veasey; First Respondent: Colin Macdougall; Second Respondent: Tamsin Landelle; Third Respondent: T3115 Limited; Fourth Respondent: BB Zoo Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition / Costs Judgment Following Disclosure Applications
Outcome
Respondents to pay 90% of the petitioner's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
Costs, Disclosure, Unfair Prejudice, Proportionate Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Disclosure Unfair Prejudice Proportionate Costs Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jake Veasey

Petitioner

Colin Macdougall

First Respondent

Tamsin Landelle

Second Respondent

T3115 Limited

Third Respondent

BB Zoo Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition / Costs Judgment Following Disclosure Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for the purposes of costs under CPR 44.2
  2. 2 Whether a proportionate or issue-based costs order is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether a reduction in costs is warranted due to partial success

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner was overall the successful party, particularly on the most important aspects of the application, and a proportionate costs order is appropriate with a 10% reduction to reflect partial failure.

Court Disposition

Respondents to pay 90% of the petitioner's costs of the application.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay 90% of the petitioner's costs of his application.
  • If parties cannot agree on a reasonable sum on account of costs, written submissions to be made for the court to decide.