Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood& Ors (Costs : special considerations)

Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood& Ors (Costs : special considerations)

The court awarded the defendants a single set of costs on the indemnity basis throughout, applying the special practice for section 84(2) claims and public policy to encourage defendants to participate without risk of adverse costs. Permission to appeal was refused as there was no real prospect of success and the issues were case-specific.

Parties
Claimant: Bath Rugby Limited; Defendant: Caroline Greenwood; Defendant: David Arthur Greenwood; Defendant: Edwin John Horlick; Defendant: Eric Newbiggin; Defendant: Dr Savio Anil De Sequeria; Defendant: Peter Francis Sherwin; Defendant: 77 Great Pulteney Street Limited; Defendant: Godfrey Douglas White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Property, Trusts and Probate / Post Trial Consequential Matters (costs and Permission to Appeal)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; costs awarded to defendants on indemnity basis; permission to appeal refused; extension of time to file appeal notice granted.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Costs, Permission to Appeal, Section 84(2) Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Civil Procedure Restrictive Covenants Costs Permission to Appeal Section 84(2) Law of Property Act 1925

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bath Rugby Limited

Claimant

Caroline Greenwood

Defendant

David Arthur Greenwood

Defendant

Edwin John Horlick

Defendant

Eric Newbiggin

Defendant

Dr Savio Anil De Sequeria

Defendant

Peter Francis Sherwin

Defendant

77 Great Pulteney Street Limited

Defendant

Godfrey Douglas White

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property, Trusts and Probate / Post Trial Consequential Matters (costs and Permission to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate basis for costs in unsuccessful section 84(2) Law of Property Act 1925 claim
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court awarded the defendants a single set of costs on the indemnity basis throughout, applying the special practice for section 84(2) claims and public policy to encourage defendants to participate without risk of adverse costs. Permission to appeal was refused as there was no real prospect of success and the issues were case-specific.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; costs awarded to defendants on indemnity basis; permission to appeal refused; extension of time to file appeal notice granted.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay defendants a single set of costs on the indemnity basis throughout.
  • Permission to appeal refused.