Mr H TV Ltd v Archerfield Partners LLP

Mr H TV Ltd v Archerfield Partners LLP

The Master was entitled to find, based on the documents and evidence, that the claimant gave informed consent to the £3.6m costs and that the settlement negotiations were conducted on that basis. There is no real prospect of successfully challenging this finding on appeal.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: MR H TV LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: ARCHERFIELD PARTNERS LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Solicitor Client Costs, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment Solicitor Client Costs Permission to Appeal

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

Parties

MR H TV LIMITED

Claimant/applicant

ARCHERFIELD PARTNERS LLP

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in finding informed consent to solicitor's costs of £3.6m under CPR 46.9
  2. 2 Whether the interpretation of documents by the Master was perverse or unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the settlement was on a global basis or with an agreed costs component

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was entitled to find, based on the documents and evidence, that the claimant gave informed consent to the £3.6m costs and that the settlement negotiations were conducted on that basis. There is no real prospect of successfully challenging this finding on appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused