Sharp & Ors v Blank & Ors [2017] EWHC B17 (Ch) (30 January 2017)

Sharp & Ors v Blank & Ors [2017] EWHC B17 (Ch) (30 January 2017)

Given the substantial sums at stake, the potential for significant uninsured costs exposure, and the benefit of clarity and potential cost savings for both parties, the cost-benefit analysis supports making a costs management order to further the overriding objective of just and proportionate litigation.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC B17 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Claimants; Respondent: Defendants
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Management Application / Interlocutory
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Costs Management, Proportionality of Costs, Security for Costs, ATE Insurance, Costs Budgeting
Civil Procedure Costs Management Proportionality of Costs Security for Costs ATE Insurance Costs Budgeting

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimants

Applicant

Defendants

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Management Application / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs management order should be made under CPR 3.15(2)
  2. 2 How proportionality and reasonableness of costs should be assessed
  3. 3 Whether the costs management order would further the overriding objective

Ratio Decidendi

Given the substantial sums at stake, the potential for significant uninsured costs exposure, and the benefit of clarity and potential cost savings for both parties, the cost-benefit analysis supports making a costs management order to further the overriding objective of just and proportionate litigation.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Costs management process to be undertaken by the Chief Master