Sahota & Anor v Sohi [2006] EWCA Civ 1194 (26 July 2006)
The trial judge exercised his discretion on costs appropriately, applying the Hamer v Giles principle analogously, assessing party success, and considering settlement conduct. No real prospect of success exists for an appeal as the judge's decisions fell within the permitted range of discretion.
- Citation
- [2006] EWCA Civ 1194
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Rajinder Kaur Sahota; Claimant/appellant: Santokh Singh Sahota; Defendant/respondent: Himmat Singh Sohi
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 26 July 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- application refused
- Legal Topics
- Costs Orders, Winding Up Partnership, Discretion in Costs, CPR 44.3, Hamer V Giles Principle
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rajinder Kaur Sahota
Claimant/appellant
Santokh Singh Sahota
Claimant/appellant
Himmat Singh Sohi
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the costs order made by Park J in a partnership action was correct
- 2 Appropriate application of Hamer v Giles principle to partnership dissolution costs
- 3 Assessment of party success and proportionality in costs
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge exercised his discretion on costs appropriately, applying the Hamer v Giles principle analogously, assessing party success, and considering settlement conduct. No real prospect of success exists for an appeal as the judge's decisions fell within the permitted range of discretion.
Court Disposition
application refused
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment