Easteye Ltd v Malhotra Property Investments Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 2820 (Ch) (03 September 2019)

Easteye Ltd v Malhotra Property Investments Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 2820 (Ch) (03 September 2019)

The Deputy District Judge's brief explanation that instruction of leading counsel was not approved was sufficient to indicate he preferred the defendants' submissions and was not persuaded that the complexity, value, or importance of the case justified leading counsel. The reasons, though concise, met the requirements for costs decisions as established by appellate authority. The decision was not perverse or wrong in principle.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2820 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Easteye Limited; Defendants: Malhotra Property Investments Limited & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against Costs Management Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Deputy District Judge's order upheld.
Legal Topics
Costs Budgeting, Reasonableness and Proportionality of Counsel, Appeal Against Costs Order, Case Management
Civil Procedure Costs Management Costs Budgeting Reasonableness and Proportionality of Counsel Appeal Against Costs Order Case Management

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Easteye Limited

Claimant

Malhotra Property Investments Limited & Ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against Costs Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy District Judge gave adequate reasons for refusing approval of leading counsel's costs in the claimant's trial phase budget
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy District Judge's decision not to approve leading counsel's costs was wrong in principle or perverse

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy District Judge's brief explanation that instruction of leading counsel was not approved was sufficient to indicate he preferred the defendants' submissions and was not persuaded that the complexity, value, or importance of the case justified leading counsel. The reasons, though concise, met the requirements for costs decisions as established by appellate authority. The decision was not perverse or wrong in principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Deputy District Judge's order upheld.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed; costs budget for claimant's trial phase fixed at £120,000.