Malmsten v Bohinc

Malmsten v Bohinc

The Master erred in principle by allowing recovery of costs not properly within the scope of the order and by failing to make a deduction for disproportionality. The proper approach to proportionality under the current CPR requires a global assessment at the end, and the sum allowed was excessive given the straightforward nature of the application. The appropriate sum recoverable is £15,000 plus VAT.

Parties
Appellant (paying Party/defendant): Ernst Malmsten; Respondent (receiving Party/claimant): Lara Bohinc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs Assessment) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Proportionality of Costs, Detailed Assessment, Shareholder Disputes
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Assessment Proportionality of Costs Detailed Assessment Shareholder Disputes

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernst Malmsten

Appellant (paying Party/defendant)

Lara Bohinc

Respondent (receiving Party/claimant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs Assessment) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs allowed included items not properly recoverable under the order for costs of and incidental to the application
  2. 2 Whether the costs allowed were disproportionate to the nature of the application
  3. 3 Whether the Master erred in principle in his approach to the assessment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Master erred in principle by allowing recovery of costs not properly within the scope of the order and by failing to make a deduction for disproportionality. The proper approach to proportionality under the current CPR requires a global assessment at the end, and the sum allowed was excessive given the straightforward nature of the application. The appropriate sum recoverable is £15,000 plus VAT.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Costs payable by Mr Malmsten to Ms Bohinc in respect of the application reduced to £15,000 plus VAT
  • No remission for further detailed assessment; proportionality applied by appellate court