SES Contracting Ltd & Ors v UK Coal Plc & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 791 (26 July 2007)

SES Contracting Ltd & Ors v UK Coal Plc & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 791 (26 July 2007)

The High Court judge failed to give sufficient weight to the general rule that the respondent to a pre-action disclosure application is normally entitled to its costs and did not adequately consider what conduct would justify a full costs order against the respondent. While there was justification for departing from the general rule due to the manner of opposition, it was not sufficient to order the appellants to pay all the respondents' costs. The appropriate order was no order as to costs.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 791
Parties
Claimants/respondents: SES Contracting Limited and SES Holdings Ltd; Defendants/appellants: UK Coal Plc, UK Coal Mining Ltd, Centechnology (UK) Ltd, Mr. Mark Weston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Order on Pre Action Disclosure Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court order for costs set aside and replaced with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Pre Action Disclosure, Costs Orders, Civil Procedure Rules, Fiduciary Duties, Tender Process
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Pre Action Disclosure Costs Orders Civil Procedure Rules Fiduciary Duties Tender Process

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

Parties

SES Contracting Limited and SES Holdings Ltd

Claimants/respondents

UK Coal Plc, UK Coal Mining Ltd, Centechnology (UK) Ltd, Mr. Mark Weston

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Order on Pre Action Disclosure Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge erred in ordering the appellants to pay the respondents' costs of a successful application for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16
  2. 2 Whether it was unreasonable for the appellants to oppose the application without providing contemporaneous documents

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court judge failed to give sufficient weight to the general rule that the respondent to a pre-action disclosure application is normally entitled to its costs and did not adequately consider what conduct would justify a full costs order against the respondent. While there was justification for departing from the general rule due to the manner of opposition, it was not sufficient to order the appellants to pay all the respondents' costs. The appropriate order was no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court order for costs set aside and replaced with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Set aside the order requiring UK Coal to pay SES's costs of the application.
  • Substitute no order as to costs.