Nassif v Augusta Offshore SPA & Ors

Nassif v Augusta Offshore SPA & Ors

The consent order did not alter the effect of CPR 38.6, which, absent provision to the contrary, resulted in deemed costs orders against the Claimant for the Second and Third Defendants’ costs, with silence as to the Claimant’s own costs of those claims. The consent order’s reference to 'the claim' was reasonably understood to refer only to the claim against the First Defendant, the only live claim at settlement. Therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to recover his own costs incurred in pursuing the discontinued claims from the First Defendant.

Parties
Claimant: Abdul Kadir Nassif; First Defendant: Augusta Offshore SPA; Second Defendant: Guernsey Ship Management Limited; Third Defendant: Seletar Shipping (Scotland) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Costs Determination After Settlement and Discontinuance
Outcome
Claimant not entitled to recover his own costs of discontinued claims against Second and Third Defendants from First Defendant.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Discontinuance, Consent Orders, Interpretation of Contracts
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Orders Discontinuance Consent Orders Interpretation of Contracts

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Kadir Nassif

Claimant

Augusta Offshore SPA

First Defendant

Guernsey Ship Management Limited

Second Defendant

Seletar Shipping (Scotland) Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Costs Determination After Settlement and Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order against the First Defendant includes the Claimant's own costs incurred in pursuing claims against the Second and Third Defendants, which were discontinued prior to settlement.

Ratio Decidendi

The consent order did not alter the effect of CPR 38.6, which, absent provision to the contrary, resulted in deemed costs orders against the Claimant for the Second and Third Defendants’ costs, with silence as to the Claimant’s own costs of those claims. The consent order’s reference to 'the claim' was reasonably understood to refer only to the claim against the First Defendant, the only live claim at settlement. Therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to recover his own costs incurred in pursuing the discontinued claims from the First Defendant.

Court Disposition

Claimant not entitled to recover his own costs of discontinued claims against Second and Third Defendants from First Defendant.

Orders

  • The First Defendant succeeds on the preliminary issue.
  • Parties invited to agree an order arising from the judgment; counsel to draft appropriate order with consequential directions.