David Brierley v Frank Otuo & Ors
There are no procedural irregularities requiring the bill of costs to be redrawn; the 60% apportionment was for payment on account, not a cap, and inclusion of costs for the application to debar is not defective given subsequent orders left the issue open.
- Parties
- Claimant: David Brierley; Defendant: Frank Otuo; Defendant: Ruth Otuo; Defendant: Jason Adu-Gyamfi
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 January 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Application / Ruling on Application to Redraw Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Bill of Costs, Detailed Assessment, Costs Orders, Civil Restraint Order, Application to Debar
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Brierley
Claimant
Frank Otuo
Defendant
Ruth Otuo
Defendant
Jason Adu-Gyamfi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Application to Redraw Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bill of costs should be redrawn to comply with the order of Newey J dated 17 March 2017
- 2 Whether the costs claimed are limited to 60% of the statement of costs dated 15 March 2017
- 3 Whether inclusion of costs for the application to debar is procedurally defective
Ratio Decidendi
There are no procedural irregularities requiring the bill of costs to be redrawn; the 60% apportionment was for payment on account, not a cap, and inclusion of costs for the application to debar is not defective given subsequent orders left the issue open.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Costs of this application reserved to be addressed at the conclusion of detailed assessment.
- Sealed directions order to be issued for case management to detailed assessment hearing.
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