Lyons v Fox Williams LLP [2017] EWHC 532 (QB) (23 March 2017)

Lyons v Fox Williams LLP [2017] EWHC 532 (QB) (23 March 2017)

Despite the defendant losing on some discrete issues, the overall result was a complete victory for the defendant on all major issues, and the most significant resources were expended on those. The circumstances did not justify departing from the general rule that costs follow the event. The refusal of the settlement offer was not unreasonable to a high degree to justify indemnity costs. No further orders were warranted regarding accepted Part 36 offers. An interim payment of £500,000 on account of costs was reasonable. The defendant was awarded £10,000 for the costs of the set aside application.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 532
Parties
Claimant: Cathal Anthony Lyons; Defendant: Fox Williams LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Post Trial Costs Ruling
Outcome
Costs awarded to the defendant; no issue-based or indemnity costs; interim payment ordered; costs of set aside application awarded to defendant.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Issue Based Costs, Settlement Offers, Interim Payments
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Orders Issue Based Costs Settlement Offers Interim Payments

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

Parties

Cathal Anthony Lyons

Claimant

Fox Williams LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Post Trial Costs Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be departed from due to partial success or conduct
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded due to refusal of a settlement offer
  3. 3 Whether further orders should be made relating to accepted Part 36 offers

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the defendant losing on some discrete issues, the overall result was a complete victory for the defendant on all major issues, and the most significant resources were expended on those. The circumstances did not justify departing from the general rule that costs follow the event. The refusal of the settlement offer was not unreasonable to a high degree to justify indemnity costs. No further orders were warranted regarding accepted Part 36 offers. An interim payment of £500,000 on account of costs was reasonable. The defendant was awarded £10,000 for the costs of the set aside application.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the defendant; no issue-based or indemnity costs; interim payment ordered; costs of set aside application awarded to defendant.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs of the action, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Claimant to make an interim payment of £500,000 on account of costs to the defendant.