Tibbles v SIG Plc (t/a Asphaltic Roofing Supplies)

Tibbles v SIG Plc (t/a Asphaltic Roofing Supplies)

The application to vary the order under CPR 3.1(7) was refused because there was no material change of circumstances or misstatement of facts, only an oversight of the applicable costs rule by the parties and the court. The application was made with significant delay, after final judgment, and the respondent was prejudiced by the delay. The circumstances did not justify retrospective variation of the order.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Matthew Tibbles; Respondent/defendant: SIG plc (trading as Asphaltic Roofing Supplies)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Variation or Revocation of Court Orders, Costs Assessment, Case Management Powers, CPR 3.1(7), CPR 44.11
Civil Procedure Variation or Revocation of Court Orders Costs Assessment Case Management Powers CPR 3.1(7) CPR 44.11

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Tibbles

Appellant/claimant

SIG plc (trading as Asphaltic Roofing Supplies)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction under CPR 3.1(7) to vary or revoke its own order regarding costs after significant delay and after final judgment
  2. 2 Whether ignorance or oversight of the default costs rule (CPR 44.11) by parties and the court justifies retrospective variation of the order

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the order under CPR 3.1(7) was refused because there was no material change of circumstances or misstatement of facts, only an oversight of the applicable costs rule by the parties and the court. The application was made with significant delay, after final judgment, and the respondent was prejudiced by the delay. The circumstances did not justify retrospective variation of the order.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed