AB & Ors v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade & Industry) [2007] EWHC 1406 (QB) (27 June 2007)

AB & Ors v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade & Industry) [2007] EWHC 1406 (QB) (27 June 2007)

The DTI was the successful party in the appeal regarding the selection of representative cases and is entitled to its costs of the appeal, including the application for permission to appeal, to be set off against the generic costs and disbursements payable to the CG in the future. The UDM's involvement was peripheral and does not justify a costs order against it. The CG is not entitled to its own costs for excluded evidence, but the DTI is not awarded its costs for challenging that evidence. No costs order is made against the CG, claimants, or Beresfords for Beresfords' delay. The DTI's liability for the UDM's second leading counsel is limited to 20% of those costs.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1406
Parties
Claimants: AB & Others; Defendants: British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade & Industry)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Group Litigation / Post Judgment Costs Hearing
Outcome
Costs orders made as specified: DTI awarded costs of appeal against claimants (set off against CG's future costs); no costs order against UDM; no costs order for DTI regarding excluded evidence or Beresfords' delay; DTI's liability for UDM's second leading counsel limited to 20%.
Legal Topics
Group Litigation Costs, Assessment of Costs, Non Party Costs Orders, Representation in Group Actions
Civil Procedure Costs Group Litigation Costs Assessment of Costs Non Party Costs Orders Representation in Group Actions

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

Parties

AB & Others

Claimants

British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade & Industry)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination in Group Litigation / Post Judgment Costs Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the DTI's appeal regarding the selection of representative cases for OROS costs determination
  2. 2 Whether the CG/UDM or claimants should be liable for costs
  3. 3 Whether the DTI is entitled to costs for evidence excluded by the court

Ratio Decidendi

The DTI was the successful party in the appeal regarding the selection of representative cases and is entitled to its costs of the appeal, including the application for permission to appeal, to be set off against the generic costs and disbursements payable to the CG in the future. The UDM's involvement was peripheral and does not justify a costs order against it. The CG is not entitled to its own costs for excluded evidence, but the DTI is not awarded its costs for challenging that evidence. No costs order is made against the CG, claimants, or Beresfords for Beresfords' delay. The DTI's liability for the UDM's second leading counsel is limited to 20% of those costs.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made as specified: DTI awarded costs of appeal against claimants (set off against CG's future costs); no costs order against UDM; no costs order for DTI regarding excluded evidence or Beresfords' delay; DTI's liability for UDM's second leading counsel limited to 20%.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay DTI's costs of the appeal (including permission application) by set off against CG's future generic costs and disbursements
  • No order for costs against UDM for the appeal