PGF II SA & Anor v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Anor

PGF II SA & Anor v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Anor

The Claimants were the successful parties and are entitled to their reasonable costs. There is no justification for a reduction based on the Defendants' partial success or the Claimants' conduct. The Defendants' arguments regarding exaggeration, protocol breaches, and late offers do not warrant a departure from the general rule. The Claimants' offers did not trigger indemnity costs. The Claimants recover their reasonable costs against the Second Defendant and 90% of their costs against the First Defendant, both on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Parties
Claimant: PGF II S. A; Claimant: PGF II (LIME) S. A; First Defendant: Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance PLC; Second Defendant: London & Edinburgh Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (dilapidations/property) / Costs Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claimants awarded costs; Second Defendant to pay Claimants' reasonable costs on standard basis; First Defendant to pay 90% of Claimants' costs on standard basis; all subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Dilapidations, Pre Action Protocols, Part 36 Offers
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Law Costs Dilapidations Pre Action Protocols Part 36 Offers

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PGF II S. A

Claimant

PGF II (LIME) S. A

Claimant

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance PLC

First Defendant

London & Edinburgh Insurance Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (dilapidations/property) / Costs Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following judgment in dilapidations claim
  2. 2 Effect of Part 36 and Calderbank offers on costs
  3. 3 Impact of compliance with Pre-Action Protocols on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants were the successful parties and are entitled to their reasonable costs. There is no justification for a reduction based on the Defendants' partial success or the Claimants' conduct. The Defendants' arguments regarding exaggeration, protocol breaches, and late offers do not warrant a departure from the general rule. The Claimants' offers did not trigger indemnity costs. The Claimants recover their reasonable costs against the Second Defendant and 90% of their costs against the First Defendant, both on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Claimants awarded costs; Second Defendant to pay Claimants' reasonable costs on standard basis; First Defendant to pay 90% of Claimants' costs on standard basis; all subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to pay Claimants' reasonable costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • First Defendant to pay 90% of Claimants' costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.