Larwood Holdings Ltd v Hammond Services Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 828 (17 May 2001)

Larwood Holdings Ltd v Hammond Services Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 828 (17 May 2001)

The apparent failure to comply with CPR 48.2(1)(a) by not formally joining Mr Hamilton as a party for costs purposes makes it arguable that the costs order against him personally should not have been made. The issue is of sufficient importance to justify permission to appeal.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 828
Parties
Claimant: Larwood Holdings Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Hammond Services Limited; Part 20 Defendant/applicant: Ray Hamilton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Third Party Costs Orders, Security for Costs, Company as Claimant, Personal Liability for Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Third Party Costs Orders Security for Costs Company as Claimant Personal Liability for Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larwood Holdings Limited

Claimant

Hammond Services Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Ray Hamilton

Part 20 Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs order can be made personally against an individual who is not a party to the claim under CPR 48.2(1)
  2. 2 Whether procedural requirements for making a third party costs order were complied with
  3. 3 Whether the appeal judge correctly upheld the district judge's order for costs against Mr Hamilton personally

Ratio Decidendi

The apparent failure to comply with CPR 48.2(1)(a) by not formally joining Mr Hamilton as a party for costs purposes makes it arguable that the costs order against him personally should not have been made. The issue is of sufficient importance to justify permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal granted
  • Case to be listed before a two-judge constitution of the Court of Appeal