Kerseviciene v Quadri & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1757 (QB) (07 July 2022)

Kerseviciene v Quadri & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1757 (QB) (07 July 2022)

The court held that even if there were shortcomings in the appellants' renewal application, these did not amount to misconduct or improper/unreasonable conduct likely to justify a wasted costs order. The respondents' attendance at the permission hearing was unnecessary, as any correction could have been made by letter, and the costs incurred were disproportionate. The general rule against awarding costs to respondents at permission hearings was not displaced.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1757
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Ruta Kerseviciene; Respondent/defendant: Mide Quadri; Respondent/defendant: Royal & Sun Alliance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal (renewal of Application for Permission to Appeal) and Costs Application / Post Permission Hearing, Costs Judgment
Outcome
Application for wasted costs order dismissed
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Orders, Misconduct of Legal Representatives, Permission to Appeal, Data Protection (gdpr), Disclosure of Evidence
Civil Procedure Costs Professional Conduct Wasted Costs Orders Misconduct of Legal Representatives Permission to Appeal Data Protection (gdpr) Disclosure of Evidence

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

Parties

Ruta Kerseviciene

Appellant/claimant

Mide Quadri

Respondent/defendant

Royal & Sun Alliance Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (renewal of Application for Permission to Appeal) and Costs Application / Post Permission Hearing, Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the appellants' solicitors amounted to misconduct justifying a wasted costs order under CPR 46.8 and/or CPR 44.11
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are entitled to recover their costs of attending the permission hearing contrary to the general rule under CPR PD 52B para. 8.1
  3. 3 Whether the renewal application by the appellants constituted improper or unreasonable conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that even if there were shortcomings in the appellants' renewal application, these did not amount to misconduct or improper/unreasonable conduct likely to justify a wasted costs order. The respondents' attendance at the permission hearing was unnecessary, as any correction could have been made by letter, and the costs incurred were disproportionate. The general rule against awarding costs to respondents at permission hearings was not displaced.

Court Disposition

Application for wasted costs order dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents' application for an order against Ersan & Co to show cause why the respondents' costs of the permission application should not be paid by Ersan & Co is dismissed.