O'Rourke Construction Ltd v Healthcare Support (Newcastle) Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 3847 (TCC) (21 November 2014)

O'Rourke Construction Ltd v Healthcare Support (Newcastle) Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 3847 (TCC) (21 November 2014)

The Claimant was the substantial winner as against the Trust, but its pursuit of certain declarations increased costs unnecessarily. A proportionate costs order is appropriate: the Trust to pay 70% of the Claimant's costs up to the hearing and 100% of the Claimant's costs of preparing submissions on costs. HSN, whose position most closely reflected the outcome, should recover 90% of its costs, with the Claimant to pay 90% of HSN's costs but recover 75% of those from the Trust.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3847 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Laing O'Rourke Construction Ltd (formerly Laing O'Rourke Northern Ltd); 1st Defendant: Healthcare Support (Newcastle) Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (technology and Construction Court) / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Decision
Outcome
Costs order made apportioning costs between parties; interim payments ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Issue Based Costs, Proportionality of Costs, Interim Payments
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Orders Issue Based Costs Proportionality of Costs Interim Payments

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 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laing O'Rourke Construction Ltd (formerly Laing O'Rourke Northern Ltd)

Claimant

Healthcare Support (Newcastle) Ltd

1st Defendant

Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (technology and Construction Court) / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which party should bear the costs of the proceedings and in what proportion?
  2. 2 Whether issue-based costs orders or a proportionate approach is appropriate
  3. 3 Appropriate interim payments on account of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant was the substantial winner as against the Trust, but its pursuit of certain declarations increased costs unnecessarily. A proportionate costs order is appropriate: the Trust to pay 70% of the Claimant's costs up to the hearing and 100% of the Claimant's costs of preparing submissions on costs. HSN, whose position most closely reflected the outcome, should recover 90% of its costs, with the Claimant to pay 90% of HSN's costs but recover 75% of those from the Trust.

Court Disposition

Costs order made apportioning costs between parties; interim payments ordered.

Orders

  • Trust to pay Claimant 70% of its costs up to and including the hearing and 100% of costs of preparing submissions on costs, on the standard basis.
  • HSN to recover 90% of its costs; Claimant to pay 90% of HSN's costs but recover 75% of those from the Trust.