Shah & Anor v Breed & Anor

Deputy Master Rogers applied the correct legal principles, exercised his discretion properly, and his decisions on proportionality, refusal to allow further amendments, and allowance of two sets of costs were within the reasonable ambit of discretion. There was no error justifying appellate intervention.

Parties: Claimant / Respondent: Piyush Lalji Shah; Claimant / Respondent: Milan Lalji Shah; Defendant / Appellant: Brian Breed; Defendant / Appellant: Solomon Solomon
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 15 February 2013
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Detailed Assessment of Costs, Proportionality, Indemnity Principle, Case Management Discretion

Civil Procedure Costs Detailed Assessment of Costs Proportionality Indemnity Principle Case Management Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7

Parties

Piyush Lalji Shah

Claimant / Respondent

Milan Lalji Shah

Claimant / Respondent

Brian Breed

Defendant / Appellant

Solomon Solomon

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

1 Whether Deputy Master Rogers erred in his assessment of costs and exercise of discretion
2 Whether the bills of costs were disproportionate
3 Whether refusal to allow re-amendment of Points of Dispute was proper

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Stay of execution on payment of respondents’ costs lifted
Appellants to pay respondents’ costs of the appeal summarily assessed at £11,526.10 within 14 days