McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd & Ors

McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd & Ors

Wilson Large was entirely successful on the defects issues, which constituted a distinct and separable part of the proceedings. There was no overlap with the over-valuation issues, and the costs relating to the defects issues were readily identifiable. The general warning against early costs orders in split trials did not apply, as the defects and over-valuation issues were not interdependent. Therefore, Wilson Large is entitled to its costs of the defects issues, and an interim payment on account is appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Ian McGlinn; First Defendant: Waltham Contractors Ltd; Second Defendant: Huw Thomas Associates; Third Defendant: DJ Hartigan & Associates Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Wilson Large & Partners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Post Trial Costs Determination (interim Payment on Account of Costs)
Outcome
Application for costs by Fourth Defendant (Wilson Large) granted; interim payment on account of costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Split Trials, Interim Payments, Issue Based Costs
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Orders Split Trials Interim Payments Issue Based 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian McGlinn

Claimant

Waltham Contractors Ltd

First Defendant

Huw Thomas Associates

Second Defendant

DJ Hartigan & Associates Ltd

Third Defendant

Wilson Large & Partners

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Post Trial Costs Determination (interim Payment on Account of Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Fourth Defendant (Wilson Large) is entitled to its costs of the defects issues as a distinct part of the proceedings prior to the resolution of over-valuation issues
  2. 2 Whether an interim payment on account of such costs should be ordered and in what amount

Ratio Decidendi

Wilson Large was entirely successful on the defects issues, which constituted a distinct and separable part of the proceedings. There was no overlap with the over-valuation issues, and the costs relating to the defects issues were readily identifiable. The general warning against early costs orders in split trials did not apply, as the defects and over-valuation issues were not interdependent. Therefore, Wilson Large is entitled to its costs of the defects issues, and an interim payment on account is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for costs by Fourth Defendant (Wilson Large) granted; interim payment on account of costs ordered.

Orders

  • Wilson Large is entitled to its costs of and occasioned by the defects issues, to be assessed on the standard basis.
  • An interim payment on account of those costs in the sum of £180,000 is to be paid by 27 March 2007.