National Westminster Bank Plc v Kotonou [2007] EWCA Civ 223 (26 February 2007)

National Westminster Bank Plc v Kotonou [2007] EWCA Civ 223 (26 February 2007)

The trial judge's decision to make a split (50/50) costs order in the guarantee proceedings was a proper exercise of discretion, justified by the fact that Mr Kotonou raised and lost on several distinct issues, some of which were unreasonably and improperly advanced. There was no error of principle in the judge's approach to the costs of the interlocutory hearings or the mortgage proceedings. The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the costs orders made.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 223
Parties
Claimant / Appellant (1 & 2), Defendant / Respondent (3): National Westminster Bank PLC; Defendant / Respondent (1 & 2), Claimant / Appellant (3): Kotonou; Claimant / Appellant (3): Deborah Kotonou
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Guarantee Enforcement, Mortgage Interpretation, Issue Based Costs Apportionment
Civil Procedure Banking Law Costs Orders Guarantee Enforcement Mortgage Interpretation Issue Based Costs Apportionment

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Westminster Bank PLC

Claimant / Appellant (1 & 2), Defendant / Respondent (3)

Kotonou

Defendant / Respondent (1 & 2), Claimant / Appellant (3)

Deborah Kotonou

Claimant / Appellant (3)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making a split (issue-based) costs order in the guarantee proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in making no order as to costs for certain interlocutory hearings
  3. 3 Whether the costs of the mortgage proceedings should follow the outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's decision to make a split (50/50) costs order in the guarantee proceedings was a proper exercise of discretion, justified by the fact that Mr Kotonou raised and lost on several distinct issues, some of which were unreasonably and improperly advanced. There was no error of principle in the judge's approach to the costs of the interlocutory hearings or the mortgage proceedings. The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the costs orders made.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Application for permission to appeal in guarantee proceedings refused