M&M Savant Ltd v Raja & Ors [2009] EWHC 90149 (Costs) (03 September 2009)

M&M Savant Ltd v Raja & Ors [2009] EWHC 90149 (Costs) (03 September 2009)

The Costs Officer erred by apportioning overlapping costs entirely to the dispensation claim. The correct approach is to allow only those costs attributable to the dispensation claim, to divide specific common costs between the claims, and to allow non-specific common costs in full. Costs incurred solely for the LVT appeal or during the stay of the dispensation claim are not recoverable. The bill must be reassessed on this basis.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 90149 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: M&M Savant Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Subhash Raja; Defendant/respondent: Robin Pauley; Defendant/respondent: Michael Brown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Appeal From Detailed Assessment Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Issue Based Costs Orders, Apportionment and Division of Costs, Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Detailed Assessment Procedure
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Costs Assessment Issue Based Costs Orders Apportionment and Division of Costs Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Detailed Assessment Procedure

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M&M Savant Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Subhash Raja

Defendant/respondent

Robin Pauley

Defendant/respondent

Michael Brown

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Appeal From Detailed Assessment Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Costs Officer erred in apportioning overlapping costs between LVT appeal and dispensation claim on a 100% basis to the dispensation claim
  2. 2 Proper approach to assessment of common costs where proceedings are linked but only one attracts a costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The Costs Officer erred by apportioning overlapping costs entirely to the dispensation claim. The correct approach is to allow only those costs attributable to the dispensation claim, to divide specific common costs between the claims, and to allow non-specific common costs in full. Costs incurred solely for the LVT appeal or during the stay of the dispensation claim are not recoverable. The bill must be reassessed on this basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Detailed assessment to be conducted afresh applying the principles set out in Cinema Press and Dyson.
  • Costs incurred solely in the LVT appeal or during the stay of the dispensation claim to be disallowed.