M&M Savant Ltd v Raja & Ors

M&M Savant Ltd v Raja & Ors

The Costs Officer erred in apportioning all overlapping costs to the dispensation claim. The correct approach is to divide specific common costs, allowing only the portion attributable to the dispensation claim, and to allow non-specific common costs in full. Costs incurred solely for the LVT appeal are not recoverable under the County Court order. Costs incurred during the period when the dispensation claim was stayed are not recoverable. The appeal is allowed and the bills must be reassessed applying these principles.

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 Against 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 Law 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 7
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 Against Detailed Assessment Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct approach to assessment of costs where proceedings involve overlapping claims and an issue-based costs order?
  2. 2 Are costs incurred in related proceedings (LVT appeal) recoverable under an order limited to County Court proceedings (dispensation claim)?
  3. 3 How should common costs be treated: by apportionment or division?

Ratio Decidendi

The Costs Officer erred in apportioning all overlapping costs to the dispensation claim. The correct approach is to divide specific common costs, allowing only the portion attributable to the dispensation claim, and to allow non-specific common costs in full. Costs incurred solely for the LVT appeal are not recoverable under the County Court order. Costs incurred during the period when the dispensation claim was stayed are not recoverable. The appeal is allowed and the bills must be reassessed applying these principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Detailed assessment set aside and to be conducted afresh applying the principles in Cinema Press and Dyson.
  • Costs incurred solely in the LVT appeal and during the period the dispensation claim was stayed are disallowed.