Parker Rt Hon, 9th Earl of Macclesfield v Beechwood Estates Company & Anor

Parker Rt Hon, 9th Earl of Macclesfield v Beechwood Estates Company & Anor

There was no material inconsistency between the judge's main judgment and his wasted costs judgment regarding disclosure of documents. The judge's impression at the time of the costs order was not shown to be erroneous or fundamentally altered by later findings. Therefore, the appeal on the documents point fails, and no extension of time is granted to argue other points.

Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant/respondent: The Rt Hon Richard Parker, 9th Earl of Macclesfield; Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant: The Beechwood Estates Company; Part 20 Defendant: Fentville Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Disclosure of Documents, Proprietary Estoppel, Contractual Licence, Extension of Time, Wasted Costs Applications
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Orders Disclosure of Documents Proprietary Estoppel Contractual Licence Extension of Time Wasted Costs Applications

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

Parties

The Rt Hon Richard Parker, 9th Earl of Macclesfield

Claimant/part 20 Defendant/respondent

The Beechwood Estates Company

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant

Fentville Ltd

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's costs order was undermined by an alleged inconsistency between his main judgment and his later wasted costs judgment regarding disclosure of documents
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time to appeal on additional grounds should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material inconsistency between the judge's main judgment and his wasted costs judgment regarding disclosure of documents. The judge's impression at the time of the costs order was not shown to be erroneous or fundamentally altered by later findings. Therefore, the appeal on the documents point fails, and no extension of time is granted to argue other points.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents to have 50% of their costs of the appeal up to 28 September 2004 and 100% thereafter on a standard basis