Virdee v Virdi & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 43 (19 January 2006)

Virdee v Virdi & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 43 (19 January 2006)

The judge's decision to make costs in the case, rather than immediate costs, was within the proper exercise of judicial discretion, particularly where the substantive application was settled by consent and the full merits were not adjudicated. There was no error in principle or misapplication of discretion warranting appellate intervention.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 43
Parties
Claimant/applicant; First Defendant/applicant: Davinder Singh Virdee; Defendant/respondent: Amritpal Singh Virdi; Defendant/respondent: Swarab Singh Virdee; Defendant/respondent; Claimant/respondent: Parmjit Singh Virdi; Defendant/respondent: Ramnik Kaour Virdi; Defendant/respondent: Robert Pick; Claimant/respondent: Swaran Singh Virdee; Second Defendant: Sardar Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Discretion of the Court, Interlocutory Applications, Tomlin Order, Appeals Procedure
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Orders Discretion of the Court Interlocutory Applications Tomlin Order Appeals 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davinder Singh Virdee

Claimant/applicant; First Defendant/applicant

Amritpal Singh Virdi

Defendant/respondent

Swarab Singh Virdee

Defendant/respondent

Parmjit Singh Virdi

Defendant/respondent; Claimant/respondent

Ramnik Kaour Virdi

Defendant/respondent

Robert Pick

Defendant/respondent

Swaran Singh Virdee

Claimant/respondent

Sardar Investments Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in exercising discretion by not awarding immediate costs to the applicant after a Tomlin order was agreed
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to grant immediate costs was a proper exercise of judicial discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to make costs in the case, rather than immediate costs, was within the proper exercise of judicial discretion, particularly where the substantive application was settled by consent and the full merits were not adjudicated. There was no error in principle or misapplication of discretion warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused in both applications