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 conduct of Ersan & Co in the renewal application did not amount to misconduct or 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 general rule against awarding respondents' costs at permission hearings was not displaced.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1757 (QB)
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
Respondents' application for an order against Ersan & Co to show cause why they should pay the respondents' costs of the permission application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Orders, Misconduct of Legal Representatives, Permission to Appeal, Gdpr/data Protection Breach Allegations
Civil Procedure Costs Data Protection Wasted Costs Orders Misconduct of Legal Representatives Permission to Appeal Gdpr/data Protection Breach Allegations

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' attendance and costs at the permission hearing were justified and recoverable
  3. 3 Whether the renewal application by the appellants improperly re-argued abandoned GDPR grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The conduct of Ersan & Co in the renewal application did not amount to misconduct or 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 general rule against awarding respondents' costs at permission hearings was not displaced.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application for an order against Ersan & Co to show cause why they should pay the respondents' costs of the permission application is dismissed.

Orders

  • No order for wasted costs against Ersan & Co.
  • No order for costs in favour of the respondents for attendance at the permission hearing.