Swivel UK Ltd v Tecnolumen GmbH & Anor [2022] EWHC 825 (Ch) (25 January 2022)

Swivel UK Ltd v Tecnolumen GmbH & Anor [2022] EWHC 825 (Ch) (25 January 2022)

The Master did not err in principle or act outside the bounds of reasonable discretion in awarding costs to the Respondents. The Respondents' resistance to the application for relief from sanctions was not unreasonable or improper, and the usual costs order was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed as the Master's decision was within the range of permissible outcomes.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 825 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant (defendant Below): Swivel UK Limited; Respondent (claimant Below): Tecnolumen GmbH; Respondent (claimant Below): Dr Meike Noll-Wagenfeld
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Default Costs Certificate, Costs Discretion, Detailed Assessment, CPR 47.12
Civil Procedure Costs Relief From Sanctions Default Costs Certificate Costs Discretion Detailed Assessment CPR 47.12

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

Parties

Swivel UK Limited

Appellant (defendant Below)

Tecnolumen GmbH

Respondent (claimant Below)

Dr Meike Noll-Wagenfeld

Respondent (claimant Below)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in exercising his discretion as to costs following an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 47.12(2)
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents acted unreasonably in resisting the application for relief from sanctions such that the usual costs order should be varied

Ratio Decidendi

The Master did not err in principle or act outside the bounds of reasonable discretion in awarding costs to the Respondents. The Respondents' resistance to the application for relief from sanctions was not unreasonable or improper, and the usual costs order was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed as the Master's decision was within the range of permissible outcomes.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against costs order dismissed
  • Costs order of £10,000 to Respondents stands