RUTA KERSEVICIENE v MIDE QUADRI & Anor

RUTA KERSEVICIENE v MIDE QUADRI & Anor

The court found that the conduct of the appellants' solicitors did not amount to misconduct or unreasonable/improper conduct likely to justify a wasted costs order. Any shortcomings in the renewal application were failures of exposition, not misconduct. The respondents' attendance at the hearing was unnecessary, as their concerns could have been addressed by a letter, and the general rule against awarding costs to respondents at permission hearings should not be displaced in these circumstances.

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
Civil Appeal / Costs Judgment Following Renewal Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Respondents' application for an order to show cause for wasted costs against Ersan & Co dismissed.
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Orders, Misconduct of Legal Representatives, Permission to Appeal, Data Protection (gdpr)
Civil Procedure Costs Wasted Costs Orders Misconduct of Legal Representatives Permission to Appeal Data Protection (gdpr)

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

Parties

Ruta Kerseviciene

Appellant/claimant

Mide Quadri

Respondent/defendant

Royal & Sun Alliance Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Costs Judgment Following Renewal Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the appellants' solicitors justified a wasted costs order under CPR 46.8 and/or CPR 44.11
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were entitled to recover costs of attending the renewal hearing for permission to appeal
  3. 3 Whether the renewal application amounted to misconduct justifying a punitive costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the conduct of the appellants' solicitors did not amount to misconduct or unreasonable/improper conduct likely to justify a wasted costs order. Any shortcomings in the renewal application were failures of exposition, not misconduct. The respondents' attendance at the hearing was unnecessary, as their concerns could have been addressed by a letter, and the general rule against awarding costs to respondents at permission hearings should not be displaced in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application for an order to show cause for wasted costs against Ersan & Co dismissed.