Purrunsing v A'Court & Co (a firm) & Anor [2016] EWHC 1528 (Ch) (01 July 2016)

Purrunsing v A'Court & Co (a firm) & Anor [2016] EWHC 1528 (Ch) (01 July 2016)

The claimant is entitled to recover his costs on the standard basis as against both defendants because he was wholly successful and the abandoned issues did not materially increase costs. The claimant is not entitled to enhanced (indemnity) costs under CPR r.36.17 because, after adjusting for interest, he did not beat his own Part 36 offer. There is no basis for indemnity costs as the defendants' conduct was not outside the norm. Each defendant is to bear 50% of the claimant's costs, and there is no order as to costs of the contribution proceedings. Costs of the 27 May 2016 hearing are apportioned on an issue basis between the parties.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1528 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Hurry Narain Purrunsing; First Defendant: A'Court & Co (A Firm); Second Defendant: House Owners Conveyancers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Post Judgment Costs Hearing (chancery Division, High Court) / Post Substantive Judgment, Determination of Costs
Outcome
Claimant entitled to costs on the standard basis; no indemnity costs; costs apportioned as per judgment; no order as to costs of contribution proceedings.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Part 36 Offers, Indemnity Costs, Standard Basis Assessment, Contribution Proceedings, Trustee Act 1925 S.61, Breach of Trust
Civil Procedure Trusts and Trustees Professional Negligence Costs Orders Part 36 Offers Indemnity Costs Standard Basis Assessment Contribution Proceedings +2 more

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hurry Narain Purrunsing

Claimant

A'Court & Co (A Firm)

First Defendant

House Owners Conveyancers Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Post Judgment Costs Hearing (chancery Division, High Court) / Post Substantive Judgment, Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to 100% of his costs against the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether costs should be assessed on the indemnity or standard basis
  3. 3 Appropriate costs provision as between the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is entitled to recover his costs on the standard basis as against both defendants because he was wholly successful and the abandoned issues did not materially increase costs. The claimant is not entitled to enhanced (indemnity) costs under CPR r.36.17 because, after adjusting for interest, he did not beat his own Part 36 offer. There is no basis for indemnity costs as the defendants' conduct was not outside the norm. Each defendant is to bear 50% of the claimant's costs, and there is no order as to costs of the contribution proceedings. Costs of the 27 May 2016 hearing are apportioned on an issue basis between the parties.

Court Disposition

Claimant entitled to costs on the standard basis; no indemnity costs; costs apportioned as per judgment; no order as to costs of contribution proceedings.

Orders

  • Claimant to recover costs of and occasioned by proceedings on the standard basis if not agreed.
  • Defendants to bear claimant's costs as per substantive judgment order (each 50%).