Islam v Ali [2003] EWCA Civ 612 (26 March 2003)

Islam v Ali [2003] EWCA Civ 612 (26 March 2003)

The trial judge erred in principle by failing to recognise that Mrs Ali was the successful party in resisting the principal and much larger part of Mr Islam's claim. The relatively small sum awarded did not represent true success for Mr Islam given the scale of the claim and the issues decided. The proper order was no order as to costs.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 612
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mr Abu Islam; Defendant/respondent: Mrs Afroza Ali
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs order set aside; no order as to costs substituted.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Remuneration for Services, Reasonable Remuneration, Part 36 Offers, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Orders Remuneration for Services Reasonable Remuneration Part 36 Offers Exercise of Judicial Discretion

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Abu Islam

Claimant/appellant

Mrs Afroza Ali

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who was the successful party for the purpose of costs?
  2. 2 Did the trial judge err in awarding costs to Mr Islam despite Mrs Ali's success on the main issues?
  3. 3 What is the proper exercise of discretion in awarding costs where the claimant recovers far less than claimed?

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in principle by failing to recognise that Mrs Ali was the successful party in resisting the principal and much larger part of Mr Islam's claim. The relatively small sum awarded did not represent true success for Mr Islam given the scale of the claim and the issues decided. The proper order was no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs order set aside; no order as to costs substituted.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • No order as to costs in the action below