Alpacas Ltd. v Wilsey (t/a Blackmore Valealpacas) [2003] EWHC 9017 (Costs) (25 July 2003)

Alpacas Ltd. v Wilsey (t/a Blackmore Valealpacas) [2003] EWHC 9017 (Costs) (25 July 2003)

The term 'action' in the Consent Order, interpreted in light of the factual background and correspondence, includes both the claim and the counterclaim. There is no ambiguity; thus, the Claimant is entitled to costs for both prosecuting the claim and defending the counterclaim. CPR 44.4(2) does not apply to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 9017 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Alpacas Limited; Defendant: Blackmore Vale Alpacas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Appeal From Costs Officer's Preliminary Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Costs Officer's directions rescinded.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Consent Orders, Costs of Action Vs Counterclaim, Application of CPR 44.4(2), Contra Proferentem Rule
Civil Procedure Costs Interpretation of Consent Orders Costs of Action Vs Counterclaim Application of CPR 44.4(2) Contra Proferentem Rule

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alpacas Limited

Claimant

Blackmore Vale Alpacas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Appeal From Costs Officer's Preliminary Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'costs of the action' in the Consent Order includes costs of defending the counterclaim
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of ambiguous consent orders regarding costs

Ratio Decidendi

The term 'action' in the Consent Order, interpreted in light of the factual background and correspondence, includes both the claim and the counterclaim. There is no ambiguity; thus, the Claimant is entitled to costs for both prosecuting the claim and defending the counterclaim. CPR 44.4(2) does not apply to interpretation of the order itself.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Costs Officer's directions rescinded.

Orders

  • Directions made by Costs Officer Baker on 10 April 2003 rescinded.
  • Further directions regarding Detailed Assessment to be given at formal delivery of judgment.