Small v Martin & Anor

Small v Martin & Anor

Mr. Small's conduct, including orchestrating harassment and dishonesty, amounted to a cynical and dishonest abuse of the court's process, justifying indemnity costs against him in both the building and harassment claims. His Part 36 offers were ineffective due to lack of candour and late disclosure. Mr. Fenton, while less culpable, participated in the deception and is jointly liable for indemnity costs in the harassment claim. The court apportioned costs between Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton for the harassment claim and ordered a permanent injunction against both.

Parties
Claimant: Philip Small; First Defendant: Andrew Martin; Second Defendant: James Fenton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (building and Harassment) / Costs Judgment Following Trial and Liability Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Mr. Martin on the harassment claim; judgment for Mr. Small on the building claim; indemnity costs orders against Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton; permanent injunction granted; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Harassment, Building Disputes, Indemnity Costs, Permanent Injunction, Part 36 Offers
Civil Procedure Tort Contract Costs Harassment Building Disputes Indemnity Costs Permanent Injunction +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 7 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Small

Claimant

Andrew Martin

First Defendant

James Fenton

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (building and Harassment) / Costs Judgment Following Trial and Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton amounted to an abuse of process justifying indemnity costs
  2. 2 Whether Part 36 offers made by the parties were effective for costs protection
  3. 3 Proper apportionment of costs between the building and harassment claims

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Small's conduct, including orchestrating harassment and dishonesty, amounted to a cynical and dishonest abuse of the court's process, justifying indemnity costs against him in both the building and harassment claims. His Part 36 offers were ineffective due to lack of candour and late disclosure. Mr. Fenton, while less culpable, participated in the deception and is jointly liable for indemnity costs in the harassment claim. The court apportioned costs between Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton for the harassment claim and ordered a permanent injunction against both.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Mr. Martin on the harassment claim; judgment for Mr. Small on the building claim; indemnity costs orders against Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton; permanent injunction granted; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Judgment for Mr. Martin against Mr. Small and Mr. Fenton on the harassment claim for £12,256 plus interest, joint and several liability.
  • Damages in the harassment claim apportioned 60% to Mr. Small, 40% to Mr. Fenton.