Messih v McMillan Williams & Ors

Messih v McMillan Williams & Ors

Discontinuance of proceedings, even after settlement with co-defendants, does not justify departure from the normal rule that the discontinuing party pays the defendant's costs; saving of court time and costs is not a sufficient reason.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Messih; Appellant/4th Defendant: McMillan Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Costs Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Discontinuance, Costs Orders, CPR 38.6, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Costs Discontinuance Costs Orders CPR 38.6 Professional Negligence

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Messih

Respondent/claimant

McMillan Williams

Appellant/4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Costs Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether settlement with co-defendants constitutes a material change of circumstances justifying departure from the normal costs rule on discontinuance under CPR 38.6
  2. 2 Whether saving of court time and costs alone is sufficient reason to disapply the default costs rule

Ratio Decidendi

Discontinuance of proceedings, even after settlement with co-defendants, does not justify departure from the normal rule that the discontinuing party pays the defendant's costs; saving of court time and costs is not a sufficient reason.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay MW's costs up to the date of discontinuance
  • Application for permission to appeal against the Recorder's costs order dismissed