Otuo v Brierley [2015] EWCA Civ 1143 (12 November 2015)

Otuo v Brierley [2015] EWCA Civ 1143 (12 November 2015)

The deputy judge erred in discounting the costs awarded to Mr Brierley because he incorrectly found that Mr Otuo had succeeded on the limitation issue. The evidence showed it was at least arguable that the limitation period had expired and that Mr Otuo delayed unduly. Therefore, Mr Brierley was entitled to all his costs of the amendment application. The refusal to impose a conditional order was also an error, but subsequent events rendered that issue academic.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1143
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Frank Otuo; Defendant/appellant: David Raymond Brierley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, Defamation Allegations, Conditional Orders
Civil Procedure Defamation Partnership Law Costs Orders Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Periods Defamation Allegations Conditional Orders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Otuo

Claimant/respondent

David Raymond Brierley

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deputy judge erred in discounting the costs awarded to the defendant by 20%
  2. 2 Whether the deputy judge erred in refusing to make an order precluding the claimant from pursuing the rest of his claim unless he complied with the costs order
  3. 3 Whether the limitation period for defamation claims could be extended under s.32A of the Limitation Act 1980 in the context of an amendment to pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

The deputy judge erred in discounting the costs awarded to Mr Brierley because he incorrectly found that Mr Otuo had succeeded on the limitation issue. The evidence showed it was at least arguable that the limitation period had expired and that Mr Otuo delayed unduly. Therefore, Mr Brierley was entitled to all his costs of the amendment application. The refusal to impose a conditional order was also an error, but subsequent events rendered that issue academic.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Mr Brierley is entitled to all of his costs of the amendment application.