Corus UK Ltd v Terex-Demag Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 781 (16 June 2005)

Corus UK Ltd v Terex-Demag Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 781 (16 June 2005)

The judge exercised his discretion to make no order as to costs because Terex failed to act promptly in identifying the arbitration clause and making the stay application, thereby incurring unnecessary costs, and because Corus complied with the pre-action protocol. There was no error of principle or issue of general importance justifying permission to appeal.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 781
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Corus UK Limited; Respondent/claimant: Terex-Demag Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Costs Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Pre Action Protocol, Section 9 Arbitration Act 1996, Stay of Proceedings, Discretion in Costs
Civil Procedure Arbitration Construction Law Costs Orders Pre Action Protocol Section 9 Arbitration Act 1996 Stay of Proceedings Discretion in Costs

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

Parties

Corus UK Limited

Applicant/defendant

Terex-Demag Limited

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in exercising discretion to make no order as to costs following a late application for a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the pre-action protocol was breached and its effect on costs
  3. 3 Whether there is a general principle regarding costs orders in section 9 applications

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised his discretion to make no order as to costs because Terex failed to act promptly in identifying the arbitration clause and making the stay application, thereby incurring unnecessary costs, and because Corus complied with the pre-action protocol. There was no error of principle or issue of general importance justifying permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No order as to costs of the action
  • No order as to costs of the application for a stay