Rollin Clifton Bertrand and others v Anthony Elias (Trinidad and Tobago)

Rollin Clifton Bertrand and others v Anthony Elias (Trinidad and Tobago)

The Board held that, in the exceptional circumstances of this case—where the proceedings were acknowledged by the claimants to be ill-founded, the actual costs incurred by the defendant were hugely disproportionate to the likely prescribed costs, the issues were complex, and the importance of the claim far exceeded its monetary value—it was appropriate to depart from the general rule and order that the defendant's costs be assessed rather than quantified as prescribed costs.

Parties
1st Respondent: Rollin Clifton Bertrand; 2nd Respondent: Trinidad Cement Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Caribbean Cement Company Ltd; Appellant: Anthony Elias
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Privy Council
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Prescribed Costs, Assessed Costs, Discontinuance, Defamation, Exercise of Discretion in Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Prescribed Costs Assessed Costs Discontinuance Defamation Exercise of Discretion in 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rollin Clifton Bertrand

1st Respondent

Trinidad Cement Ltd

2nd Respondent

Caribbean Cement Company Ltd

3rd Respondent

Anthony Elias

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be quantified as prescribed costs or assessed costs after discontinuance of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the court can stipulate a value for the claim without hearing evidence
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances justify departure from prescribed costs regime

Ratio Decidendi

The Board held that, in the exceptional circumstances of this case—where the proceedings were acknowledged by the claimants to be ill-founded, the actual costs incurred by the defendant were hugely disproportionate to the likely prescribed costs, the issues were complex, and the importance of the claim far exceeded its monetary value—it was appropriate to depart from the general rule and order that the defendant's costs be assessed rather than quantified as prescribed costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Court of Appeal set aside
  • Order reinstated that claimants pay the defendant’s costs to be assessed by the Master in Chambers