Brit Inns Ltd & Anor v BDW Trading Ltd (No 2) [2012] EWHC 2489 (TCC) (07 September 2012)

Brit Inns Ltd & Anor v BDW Trading Ltd (No 2) [2012] EWHC 2489 (TCC) (07 September 2012)

Claimants in the main action were the successful party up to 30 May 2012 but their exaggerated claims, inadequate disclosure, and flawed expert evidence justified a 40% reduction in recoverable costs and exclusion of all expert-related costs; from 30 May 2012, claimants' refusal of a realistic Part 44 offer rendered...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2489 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Brit Inns Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: Vincent Barber; Claimant: Linda Lawless; Claimant: Stephen Katz (Acting as Liquidator of Brit Inns Ltd); Defendant: BDW Trading Limited; Third Party/part 20 Defendant: J Reddington Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Post Trial, Costs Judgment
Outcome
Costs orders made: defendant to pay 60% of claimants' costs in main action up to 30 May 2012 (excluding all expert-related and supplementary statement costs); claimants to pay defendant's costs from 30 May 2012 in main action; claimants to pay 90% of defendant's costs in uninsured action; all costs to be assessed on...
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Part 44 Offers, Exaggeration of Claims, Interest on Damages, Expert Evidence, Conduct of Litigation
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Construction Law Costs Part 36 Offers Part 44 Offers Exaggeration of Claims Interest on Damages +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brit Inns Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Vincent Barber

Claimant

Linda Lawless

Claimant

Stephen Katz (Acting as Liquidator of Brit Inns Ltd)

Claimant

BDW Trading Limited

Defendant

J Reddington Limited

Third Party/part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Post Trial, Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper approach to costs where claimants recover less than claimed and defendants fail to better their Part 36 offer
  2. 2 Effect of exaggerated claims and inadequate disclosure on costs
  3. 3 Impact of separate proceedings for insured and uninsured losses on costs liability

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants in the main action were the successful party up to 30 May 2012 but their exaggerated claims, inadequate disclosure, and flawed expert evidence justified a 40% reduction in recoverable costs and exclusion of all expert-related costs; from 30 May 2012, claimants' refusal of a realistic Part 44 offer rendered them liable for all defendant's costs thereafter. In the uninsured action, claimants' minimal recovery and unjustified separate proceedings warranted an order that they pay 90% of the defendant's costs.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made: defendant to pay 60% of claimants' costs in main action up to 30 May 2012 (excluding all expert-related and supplementary statement costs); claimants to pay defendant's costs from 30 May 2012 in main action; claimants to pay 90% of defendant's costs in uninsured action; all costs to be assessed on...

Orders

  • Defendant to pay 60% of claimants' reasonable and proportionate costs in main action up to 30 May 2012, excluding all costs related to claimants' experts and late supplementary statements.
  • Claimants to pay all defendant's costs in main action from 30 May 2012 onwards.