Vernon-Kell v Clinch & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1196 (14 July 2003)

Vernon-Kell v Clinch & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1196 (14 July 2003)

The trial judge's costs order, which awarded the claimant most of his costs except for days 2 to 5 of the contract trial, was within the proper exercise of discretion given the significant factual overlap and the overall success of the claimant. The judge's approach to apportionment and refusal to award costs to the second defendant was not outside the range of lawful conclusions.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1196
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Peter Vernon-Kell; First Defendant/appellant: Norman Frederick Clinch; Second Defendant/appellant: Fairfield Imaging Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Quantum Meruit, Contractual Commission, Discretion in Costs, Apportionment of Costs
Contract Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders Quantum Meruit Contractual Commission Discretion in Costs Apportionment of 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Vernon-Kell

Claimant/respondent

Norman Frederick Clinch

First Defendant/appellant

Fairfield Imaging Limited

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's costs order was within the proper exercise of discretion given the outcome of contract and quantum meruit claims
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant should have been awarded costs as a successful party on the contract claim

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's costs order, which awarded the claimant most of his costs except for days 2 to 5 of the contract trial, was within the proper exercise of discretion given the significant factual overlap and the overall success of the claimant. The judge's approach to apportionment and refusal to award costs to the second defendant was not outside the range of lawful conclusions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants to pay Respondent's costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at £10,647 including VAT