Richardson Roofing Company Ltd v Ballast Plc & Ors

Richardson Roofing Company Ltd v Ballast Plc & Ors

The Costs Judge should assess the costs incurred and thrown away by the adjournment of the trial, considering whether any preparation or documents would have value in any renewed or revived proceedings after November 2003; the assessment is not to include all TCP’s costs of the action or costs occasioned by the...

Source-derived case information.

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 Direction to Costs Judge
Outcome
Application granted in part; direction given to Costs Judge for assessment as per judgment.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Consent Orders, Adjournment, Interpretation of Legal Documents
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Assessment Consent Orders Adjournment Interpretation of Legal Documents

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 Direction to Costs Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs incurred and thrown away by the adjournment of the trial include all TCP’s costs of preparation 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 Costs Judge should assess the costs incurred and thrown away by the adjournment of the trial, considering whether any preparation or documents would have value in any renewed or revived proceedings after November 2003; the assessment is not to include all TCP’s costs of the action or costs occasioned by the striking out of the Particulars of Claim.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; direction given to Costs Judge for assessment as per judgment.

Orders

  • Costs Judge to assess costs incurred and thrown away by the adjournment of the trial, considering potential value in revived proceedings.
  • Costs of this application to be costs in the assessment.