D Pride & Partners v Institute for Animal Health & Ors [2009] EWHC 1617 (QB) (08 July 2009)

D Pride & Partners v Institute for Animal Health & Ors [2009] EWHC 1617 (QB) (08 July 2009)

The defendants were the successful parties and are entitled to their costs from the claimants, with no reduction for the statutory regime/Marcic issue or for alleged duplication of representation. Excessive costs for trial bundles were not awarded on an indemnity basis as it would be disproportionate. Interest on costs is awarded at base rate plus 1%, with judgment interest to start four months after the order. Interim payments on account of costs are ordered in the sums sought by the defendants.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1617 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: D Pride & Partners; First Defendant: Institute for Animal Health; Second Defendant: Merial; Third Defendant: Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment (costs Applications After Dismissal and Settlement)
Outcome
Costs awarded to defendants; claimants' applications for costs refused; interim payments ordered.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Private Nuisance, Rylands V Fletcher, Costs, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Interest on Costs, Settlement, Pre Action Protocol
Tort Law Civil Procedure Negligence Private Nuisance Rylands V Fletcher Costs Summary Judgment Strike Out +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D Pride & Partners

Claimant

Institute for Animal Health

First Defendant

Merial

Second Defendant

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment (costs Applications After Dismissal and Settlement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants or defendants should bear costs following settlement and dismissal of claims
  2. 2 Whether costs should be apportioned due to statutory regime/Marcic defence
  3. 3 Whether duplication of representation among defendants should affect costs

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were the successful parties and are entitled to their costs from the claimants, with no reduction for the statutory regime/Marcic issue or for alleged duplication of representation. Excessive costs for trial bundles were not awarded on an indemnity basis as it would be disproportionate. Interest on costs is awarded at base rate plus 1%, with judgment interest to start four months after the order. Interim payments on account of costs are ordered in the sums sought by the defendants.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to defendants; claimants' applications for costs refused; interim payments ordered.

Orders

  • First to seventh claimants to pay IAH and Merial's costs of proceedings (other than those covered by settlement) on standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
  • Eighth to fourteenth claimants to pay defendants' costs of proceedings on standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.