Feakins v Burstow & Anor

Feakins v Burstow & Anor

Permission to appeal was granted to the claimant on the assessment of his chance of success regarding the exempt sheep claim and to the defendants on contributory negligence in 1992, as these issues warranted further consideration. The claimant was awarded his costs of the action, as the unsuccessful claims were ancillary, not exaggerated, and did not justify a reduction. The late settlement offer inclusive of costs did not warrant a costs penalty as it was reasonable for the claimant to reject it given its form and timing.

Parties
Claimant: Kevin Andrew Feakins; Defendant: Anthony Michael Burstow; Defendant: Argles Stoneham Burstows (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Permission to Appeal and Costs
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part; costs awarded to claimant.
Legal Topics
Permission to Appeal, Costs Orders, Solicitor Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Settlement Offers
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Permission to Appeal Costs Orders Solicitor Negligence Contributory Negligence Settlement Offers

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Andrew Feakins

Claimant

Anthony Michael Burstow

Defendant

Argles Stoneham Burstows (a firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Permission to Appeal and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on specific findings
  2. 2 Appropriate costs order in light of partial success and settlement offers
  3. 3 Application of Amory v Delamirie principle to solicitor negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was granted to the claimant on the assessment of his chance of success regarding the exempt sheep claim and to the defendants on contributory negligence in 1992, as these issues warranted further consideration. The claimant was awarded his costs of the action, as the unsuccessful claims were ancillary, not exaggerated, and did not justify a reduction. The late settlement offer inclusive of costs did not warrant a costs penalty as it was reasonable for the claimant to reject it given its form and timing.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part; costs awarded to claimant.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to claimant on assessment of chance of success for exempt sheep claim.
  • Permission to appeal granted to defendants on contributory negligence in 1992.