SES Contracting Ltd & Ors v UK Coal Plc & Ors

SES Contracting Ltd & Ors v UK Coal Plc & Ors

The judge’s exercise of discretion was flawed because he did not have sufficient regard to the general rule that the respondent is normally entitled to their costs and did not adequately consider what kind of conduct would justify ordering the respondent to pay all the applicant’s costs. While there was justification for departing from the general rule due to the manner of opposition, it did not warrant ordering UK Coal to pay the whole of SES’s costs. The proper order was no order as to costs.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: SES Contracting Limited; Claimant/respondent: SES Holdings Ltd; Defendant/appellant: UK Coal Plc; Defendant/appellant: UK Coal Mining Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Centechnology (UK) Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Mr. Mark Weston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Costs Following Pre Action Disclosure Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order for costs against appellants set aside and replaced with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Pre Action Disclosure, Costs Orders, Civil Procedure Rules, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Pre Action Disclosure Costs Orders Civil Procedure Rules Exercise of Judicial Discretion

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

Claimant/respondent

SES Holdings Ltd

Claimant/respondent

UK Coal Plc

Defendant/appellant

UK Coal Mining Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Centechnology (UK) Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Mr. Mark Weston

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Costs Following Pre Action Disclosure Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in ordering the appellants to pay the respondents’ costs of a successful application for disclosure before proceedings under CPR 31.16
  2. 2 Whether the manner of opposition to the application by the appellants justified a departure from the general rule on costs under CPR 48.1(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge’s exercise of discretion was flawed because he did not have sufficient regard to the general rule that the respondent is normally entitled to their costs and did not adequately consider what kind of conduct would justify ordering the respondent to pay all the applicant’s costs. While there was justification for departing from the general rule due to the manner of opposition, it did not warrant ordering UK Coal to pay the whole of SES’s costs. The proper order was no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Original order for costs against UK Coal set aside.
  • No order as to costs of the application for pre-action disclosure.