Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services) v Holton

Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services) v Holton

There was never a good basis for the allegation that Keith Cockell was in partnership with Simon Cockell. The application for specific disclosure was a fishing expedition yielding nothing. The presumption that the discontinuing claimant pays the defendant's costs applies. Keith Cockell is entitled to his costs on an indemnity basis; Simon Cockell is entitled to his costs on the standard basis.

Parties
Claimant: Simon Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services); Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Martin Holton; Second Defendant to Part 20 Claim: Keith Cockell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Costs Ruling After Discontinuance of Claim Against Second Defendant to Counterclaim
Outcome
Costs awarded to Simon and Keith Cockell; indemnity basis for Keith Cockell, standard basis for Simon Cockell; costs of disclosure application assessed for Keith Cockell; other costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Discontinuance, Costs Orders, Partnership Allegations, Disclosure Applications
Civil Procedure Costs Discontinuance Costs Orders Partnership Allegations Disclosure Applications

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services)

Claimant

Martin Holton

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Keith Cockell

Second Defendant to Part 20 Claim

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Costs Ruling After Discontinuance of Claim Against Second Defendant to Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the usual costs order on discontinuance should be disapplied in favour of the discontinuing claimant
  2. 2 Whether there was a reasonable basis for the allegation of partnership between Simon and Keith Cockell
  3. 3 Whether the application for specific disclosure was justified

Ratio Decidendi

There was never a good basis for the allegation that Keith Cockell was in partnership with Simon Cockell. The application for specific disclosure was a fishing expedition yielding nothing. The presumption that the discontinuing claimant pays the defendant's costs applies. Keith Cockell is entitled to his costs on an indemnity basis; Simon Cockell is entitled to his costs on the standard basis.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Simon and Keith Cockell; indemnity basis for Keith Cockell, standard basis for Simon Cockell; costs of disclosure application assessed for Keith Cockell; other costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Orders

  • Mr. Holton to pay Keith Cockell's costs of the action and disclosure application on an indemnity basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Mr. Holton to pay Simon Cockell's costs of the discontinued claim and partnership issue on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.