South Bank Hotel Management Company Limited v Galliard Hotels Limited & Ors

South Bank Hotel Management Company Limited v Galliard Hotels Limited & Ors

The court refused to grant the broad declaration sought by Galliard due to lack of pleading and risk of unintended consequences. Lodgeshine was not entitled to all costs of the Main Claim under the Underlease due to evidential gaps. For the Rent Claim, the Underlease entitled Lodgeshine to indemnity costs. Costs of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: South Bank Hotel Management Company Limited; Defendant: Galliard Hotels Limited; Defendant: Stephen Stuart Solomon Conway; Defendant: Christopher John Duffy; Defendant: Lodgeshine Limited; Defendant: Galliard Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/property / Post Trial Consequential Judgment on Costs and Orders
Outcome
Declaration refused; costs orders made; permission to appeal refused; limited stay granted.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Standard Costs, Disclosure, Rectification, Limitation, Part 36 Offers, Stay of Execution
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Costs Indemnity Costs Standard Costs Disclosure Rectification +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South Bank Hotel Management Company Limited

Claimant

Galliard Hotels Limited

Defendant

Stephen Stuart Solomon Conway

Defendant

Christopher John Duffy

Defendant

Lodgeshine Limited

Defendant

Galliard Homes Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/property / Post Trial Consequential Judgment on Costs and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a declaration extinguishing SBHMC's equitable interest in Lodgeshine's leasehold title
  2. 2 Whether Lodgeshine is contractually entitled to indemnity costs under the Underlease for the Main Claim and Rent Claim
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity or standard basis and from what date

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant the broad declaration sought by Galliard due to lack of pleading and risk of unintended consequences. Lodgeshine was not entitled to all costs of the Main Claim under the Underlease due to evidential gaps. For the Rent Claim, the Underlease entitled Lodgeshine to indemnity costs. Costs of the Main Claim were awarded to Galliard on the standard basis up to 15 May 2024 and on the indemnity basis thereafter due to SBHMC's unreasonable persistence in fraud allegations after disclosure. Galliard's recoverable costs were reduced by 15% to reflect SBHMC's partial success. For the Rent Claim, Part 36 consequences applied after the relevant period, with indemnity costs...

Court Disposition

Declaration refused; costs orders made; permission to appeal refused; limited stay granted.

Orders

  • No declaration extinguishing SBHMC's equitable interest granted.
  • Galliard awarded 85% of its costs of the Main Claim: standard basis up to 15 May 2024, indemnity basis thereafter.