Afan Valley Limited v Lupton Fawcett (a firm) & Ors

Afan Valley Limited v Lupton Fawcett (a firm) & Ors

The court had no jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal after judgment was handed down without adjournment. Costs were apportioned primarily to the Claimants, with reductions reflecting issues on which Defendants were not wholly successful. Interim payments on account of costs were ordered at 50%. Interest on costs was awarded at commercial rates. Claimants were responsible for costs of extension of time and adjournment applications.

Parties
Claimant: Afan Valley Limited (in Administration) and Ors; Second Defendant: Lupton Fawcett LLP; Seventh Defendant: Metis Law; Eighth Defendant: Metis Law Partners LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence) / Post Judgment Consequential Matters (costs and Permission to Appeal)
Outcome
Costs orders made; permission to appeal refused for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Permission to Appeal, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Interest on Costs
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Costs Orders Permission to Appeal Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings Interest 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afan Valley Limited (in Administration) and Ors

Claimant

Lupton Fawcett LLP

Second Defendant

Metis Law

Seventh Defendant

Metis Law Partners LLP

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (professional Negligence) / Post Judgment Consequential Matters (costs and Permission to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal after judgment was handed down without adjournment
  2. 2 How costs should be apportioned between the parties following strike out/summary judgment and amendment applications
  3. 3 Entitlement to interim payments on account of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court had no jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal after judgment was handed down without adjournment. Costs were apportioned primarily to the Claimants, with reductions reflecting issues on which Defendants were not wholly successful. Interim payments on account of costs were ordered at 50%. Interest on costs was awarded at commercial rates. Claimants were responsible for costs of extension of time and adjournment applications.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made; permission to appeal refused for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay 75% of LF’s costs of the strike out/summary judgment application, including costs of amendments and application to amend.
  • Claimants to pay 50% of LF’s costs as an interim payment.