Richardson Roofing Company Ltd v Ballast Plc & Ors [2008] EWHC 1806 (TCC) (25 July 2008)

Richardson Roofing Company Ltd v Ballast Plc & Ors [2008] EWHC 1806 (TCC) (25 July 2008)

The Consent Order's reference to 'costs incurred and thrown away by the adjournment of the trial' must be construed in the context of the factual matrix as at 4 November 2003, not at the time of the original adjournment. The order does not include all costs of the action or costs occasioned by the striking out of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1806 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Richardson Roofing Company Ltd; Defendant: Ballast Plc (Dissolved); Third Party: Compco Holdings Plc; Fourth Party: The Colman Partnership
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Consent Order, Application for Directions to Costs Judge
Outcome
Application granted in part; directions given to Costs Judge for detailed assessment in accordance with judgment.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Interpretation of Consent Orders, Costs Thrown Away, Detailed Assessment, Adjournment of Trial
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Assessment Interpretation of Consent Orders Costs Thrown Away Detailed Assessment Adjournment of Trial

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Richardson Roofing Company Ltd

Claimant

Ballast Plc (Dissolved)

Defendant

Compco Holdings Plc

Third Party

The Colman Partnership

Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Consent Order, Application for Directions to Costs Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs incurred and thrown away by the adjournment of the trial include all of the Fourth Party's costs of preparation for and attendance at the trial of Preliminary Issues
  2. 2 Proper construction of paragraph 1 of the Consent Order dated 4 November 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The Consent Order's reference to 'costs incurred and thrown away by the adjournment of the trial' must be construed in the context of the factual matrix as at 4 November 2003, not at the time of the original adjournment. The order does not include all costs of the action or costs occasioned by the striking out of the Particulars of Claim, but only those costs reasonably considered to have been wasted by the adjournment. The detailed assessment of which costs were truly 'thrown away' is for the Costs Judge, who must consider whether any preparation would have value in any revived proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; directions given to Costs Judge for detailed assessment in accordance with judgment.

Orders

  • Costs Judge to assess costs thrown away by the adjournment of the trial, considering the matters raised in this judgment.
  • Costs of this application to be costs in the assessment.