Smolen v Solon Co-Operative Housing Services Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 1567 (28 June 2005)

Smolen v Solon Co-Operative Housing Services Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 1567 (28 June 2005)

Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide any substantive grounds for disputing the costs or the orders made; the court found no procedural irregularity or misapplication of the overriding objective. The indemnity clause in the lease did not apply to litigation costs in these circumstances. The applicant's medical evidence was inadequate and did not justify non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1567
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Alex Smolen; Defendant/respondent: Solon Co-Operative Housing Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal; Review of Costs Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; all applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Lease Covenants, Costs Assessment, Setting Aside Orders, Default Costs Certificate, Litigant in Person Procedure
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Lease Covenants Costs Assessment Setting Aside Orders Default Costs Certificate Litigant in Person Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Smolen

Claimant/applicant

Solon Co-Operative Housing Services Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal; Review of Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against orders striking out claim and assessing costs
  2. 2 Whether costs orders and default costs certificate should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether clause 3(15) of the lease indemnifies the claimant against costs

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide any substantive grounds for disputing the costs or the orders made; the court found no procedural irregularity or misapplication of the overriding objective. The indemnity clause in the lease did not apply to litigation costs in these circumstances. The applicant's medical evidence was inadequate and did not justify non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; all applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal from the judgment of Jackson J refused.
  • Application for permission to appeal from the judgment of Pitchers J refused.