Cranstoun & Anor v Notta

Cranstoun & Anor v Notta

The Claimants were the successful parties, having secured a favourable valuation and outcome. The Defendant’s arguments regarding costs under the varied agreement were rejected. The Claimants are entitled to their costs, with indemnity costs from 1 May 2020 due to the Defendant’s unreasonable conduct and failure to accept reasonable settlement offers. The Claimants’ costs budget is revised upwards for significant developments. An interim payment on account of costs is ordered, with set-off against the purchase price. Permission to appeal is refused as the grounds lack merit.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Nigel Cranstoun; Claimant: Dr Claire Rumley; Defendant: Dr Gurpreet Notta
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (business/property) / Post Trial, Form of Order and Costs Determination
Outcome
Claimants’ application for costs and upward revision of costs budget allowed in part; Defendant’s application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Valuation Under Partnership Agreement, Costs Management and Assessment, Interpretation of Settlement Offers, Indemnity Costs, Set Off of Monetary Awards
Contract Law Civil Procedure Costs Valuation Under Partnership Agreement Costs Management and Assessment Interpretation of Settlement Offers Indemnity Costs Set Off of Monetary Awards

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Nigel Cranstoun

Claimant

Dr Claire Rumley

Claimant

Dr Gurpreet Notta

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (business/property) / Post Trial, Form of Order and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What orders should be made following the main judgment, including costs and set-off?
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded for any period and if so, from when?
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants’ costs budget should be revised upwards due to significant developments?

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants were the successful parties, having secured a favourable valuation and outcome. The Defendant’s arguments regarding costs under the varied agreement were rejected. The Claimants are entitled to their costs, with indemnity costs from 1 May 2020 due to the Defendant’s unreasonable conduct and failure to accept reasonable settlement offers. The Claimants’ costs budget is revised upwards for significant developments. An interim payment on account of costs is ordered, with set-off against the purchase price. Permission to appeal is refused as the grounds lack merit.

Court Disposition

Claimants’ application for costs and upward revision of costs budget allowed in part; Defendant’s application for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Claimants awarded costs of the action, with indemnity costs from 1 May 2020.
  • Claimants’ costs budget revised upwards by £13,807 for significant developments.