Miah Ibar Lone v Michael Andreas Petrou

Miah Ibar Lone v Michael Andreas Petrou

Permission to appeal is refused because none of the grounds advanced by the Appellant have a realistic prospect of success, the orders under appeal were made by consent, the 20% rule was correctly applied to the headline figure, and the appeal constitutes an abuse of process as a second attempt to challenge the 2017 order. No evidence was provided to support the grounds, and procedural requirements were not met.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Miah Ibar Lone; Respondent/defendant: Michael Andreas Petrou
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Orders)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed as totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Detailed Assessment of Costs, Consent Orders, Appeals Process, Solicitor Client Costs, Application of the 20% Rule, Special Circumstances in Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Detailed Assessment of Costs Consent Orders Appeals Process Solicitor Client Costs Application of the 20% Rule Special Circumstances in Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miah Ibar Lone

Appellant/claimant

Michael Andreas Petrou

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against costs orders made in 2017 and 2022
  2. 2 Whether the 20% rule was correctly applied in the assessment of costs
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in not considering the retainer or other points of dispute

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused because none of the grounds advanced by the Appellant have a realistic prospect of success, the orders under appeal were made by consent, the 20% rule was correctly applied to the headline figure, and the appeal constitutes an abuse of process as a second attempt to challenge the 2017 order. No evidence was provided to support the grounds, and procedural requirements were not met.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed as totally without merit.

Orders

  • Stay on paragraphs 4-7 of the 19 May 2022 order terminated forthwith.
  • Appellant to pay Respondent's costs of the appeal: £2,000 plus VAT for counsel's fees and £200 plus VAT for solicitors' fees.