BMG (Mansfield) Ltd & Ors v Galliford Try Construction Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 3468 (TCC) (15 November 2013)

BMG (Mansfield) Ltd & Ors v Galliford Try Construction Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 3468 (TCC) (15 November 2013)

Defendants' over-aggressive and disproportionate opposition to the applications breached the overriding objective, justifying an order that they pay 50% of Claimants' costs of the applications. Claimants' costs relating to the previous expert (Mr. Streeter) are not recoverable. Costs thrown away or occasioned by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3468 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: BMG (Mansfield) Ltd; Claimant: The BMG (Mansfield) Ltd Partnership; Defendant: Galliford Try Construction Ltd; Defendant: Aedas Architects Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Interlocutory Application for Costs Following Amendments and Expert Substitution
Outcome
Costs order made as specified; interim payment ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs, Amendment of Pleadings, Expert Evidence, Overriding Objective
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Amendment of Pleadings Expert Evidence Overriding Objective

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BMG (Mansfield) Ltd

Claimant

The BMG (Mansfield) Ltd Partnership

Claimant

Galliford Try Construction Ltd

Defendant

Aedas Architects Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Interlocutory Application for Costs Following Amendments and Expert Substitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following application to amend Particulars of Claim and substitute expert
  2. 2 Allocation of costs relating to previous and new experts
  3. 3 Responsibility for costs occasioned by amendments

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants' over-aggressive and disproportionate opposition to the applications breached the overriding objective, justifying an order that they pay 50% of Claimants' costs of the applications. Claimants' costs relating to the previous expert (Mr. Streeter) are not recoverable. Costs thrown away or occasioned by amendments are to be borne by the party responsible for the need for amendment.

Court Disposition

Costs order made as specified; interim payment ordered.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay 50% of Claimants' costs of the applications, including hearing costs, in equal shares on a joint and several basis.
  • Claimants' costs of instructing Mr. Streeter not recoverable.