Sirketi v Kupeli & Ors

Sirketi v Kupeli & Ors

In complex group litigation, the identification of the 'successful party' for costs purposes cannot be determined solely by who receives payment. The court must consider the litigation as a whole, the extent of each party's success, and the consequences for all claims. The trial judge erred by focusing on the payment direction and not adequately reflecting Atlasjet's substantial success. The appropriate order is no order as to costs, as honours were even and both parties had mixed success.

Parties
Appellant/second Defendant: Atlasjet Havacilik Anonim Sirketi; First Respondents/claimants: Ozlem Kupeli & Others; Second Respondent/first Defendant: Kibris Turk Hava Yollari Sirketi (trading as Cyprus Turkish Airlines)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal From High Court (costs Order)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs order set aside; no order as to costs of the Part 1 trial.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Group Litigation, Success in Litigation, Appeals on Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Orders Group Litigation Success in Litigation 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atlasjet Havacilik Anonim Sirketi

Appellant/second Defendant

Ozlem Kupeli & Others

First Respondents/claimants

Kibris Turk Hava Yollari Sirketi (trading as Cyprus Turkish Airlines)

Second Respondent/first Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal From High Court (costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the 'successful party' for the purposes of CPR rule 44.2(2) in group litigation?
  2. 2 Was the trial judge's approach to costs in a group claim correct?
  3. 3 Should the conduct of the parties affect the costs order?

Ratio Decidendi

In complex group litigation, the identification of the 'successful party' for costs purposes cannot be determined solely by who receives payment. The court must consider the litigation as a whole, the extent of each party's success, and the consequences for all claims. The trial judge erred by focusing on the payment direction and not adequately reflecting Atlasjet's substantial success. The appropriate order is no order as to costs, as honours were even and both parties had mixed success.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs order set aside; no order as to costs of the Part 1 trial.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Order of Whipple J dated 21 June 2016 quashed.
  • No order as to costs of the Part 1 trial.