Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd & Anor v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 449 (31 March 2010)

Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd & Anor v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 449 (31 March 2010)

Multiplex remained the overall successful party despite a reduction in their financial recovery on appeal. Cleveland Bridge's failure to engage constructively in settlement negotiations justified maintaining the costs order below. On the appeal, Multiplex succeeded on more issues, but Cleveland Bridge's financial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 449
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd; Appellant/respondent: Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Ltd; Respondent/appellant: Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Costs Following Quantum Appeals
Outcome
Appeals allowed or dismissed to the extent indicated in the February 19 judgment; costs order below maintained with minor adjustment for appeal costs.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Quantum Appeals, Settlement Offers, Apportionment of Costs
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Orders Quantum Appeals Settlement Offers Apportionment of Costs

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd

Appellant/respondent

Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Ltd

Appellant/respondent

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Costs Following Quantum Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order made by the trial judge should be revised in light of the outcome of the quantum appeals
  2. 2 Whether either party should be entitled to revisit costs orders not affected by the outcome of the appeals
  3. 3 How to apportion costs of the appeal given the mixed success of the parties

Ratio Decidendi

Multiplex remained the overall successful party despite a reduction in their financial recovery on appeal. Cleveland Bridge's failure to engage constructively in settlement negotiations justified maintaining the costs order below. On the appeal, Multiplex succeeded on more issues, but Cleveland Bridge's financial success warranted awarding Multiplex only 25% of their costs of the appeal. No wider revisitation of costs orders was permitted as there was no general costs appeal before the court.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed or dismissed to the extent indicated in the February 19 judgment; costs order below maintained with minor adjustment for appeal costs.

Orders

  • Multiplex to have 25% of their costs of the appeal.
  • No alteration to the judge's costs order below.