Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership [2002] EWCA Civ 1125 (31 July 2002)

Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership [2002] EWCA Civ 1125 (31 July 2002)

The trial judge was entitled to exercise his discretion to make a percentage costs order rather than an issue-based order, given the lack of precise evidence as to the costs attributable to the HIS issue and the impracticality of an issue-based order. The deduction of 25% from the claimant’s costs was within the judge’s discretion and not shown to be based on an incorrect principle or to be plainly unjust.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1125
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Budgen; Appellant/defendant: Andrew Gardner Partnership
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Issue Based Costs, Percentage Costs Orders, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr), Discretion in Costs, Appeals on Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Orders Issue Based Costs Percentage Costs Orders Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Discretion in Costs Appeals on Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Budgen

Claimant/respondent

Andrew Gardner Partnership

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making a percentage costs order rather than an issue-based costs order under CPR 44.3 in respect of the HIS issue.
  2. 2 Whether the deduction of only 25% from the claimant’s costs sufficiently reflected the claimant’s unreasonable pursuit of the HIS issue.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to exercise his discretion to make a percentage costs order rather than an issue-based order, given the lack of precise evidence as to the costs attributable to the HIS issue and the impracticality of an issue-based order. The deduction of 25% from the claimant’s costs was within the judge’s discretion and not shown to be based on an incorrect principle or to be plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to be paid on the standard basis.
  • The application to set aside judgment is dismissed with no order as to costs.