David Brierley v Frank Otuo & Ors

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the bill of costs should be redrawn to comply with the order of Newey J dated 17 March 2017
  2. 2 Whether the costs claimed are limited to 60% of the statement of costs dated 15 March 2017
  3. 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.