Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors (Consequential Orders) [2020] EWHC 3025 (Ch) (11 November 2020)

Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors (Consequential Orders) [2020] EWHC 3025 (Ch) (11 November 2020)

Defendants' conduct, including forgery and dishonesty, took the case out of the norm and justified indemnity costs; costs paid under a set aside order must be repaid; Defendants are liable for wasted trial costs caused by their fraud.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3025 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Balber Kaur Takhar; Defendant: Gracefield Developments Limited; Defendant: Kewal Singh Krishan; Defendant: Parkash Kaur Krishan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Consequential Orders Following Judgment Setting Aside Previous Order and Awarding Costs
Outcome
Claimant's applications granted in full, subject to quantification and liberty to apply on certain issues.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Assessment of Costs, Consequential Orders, Fraud in Civil Proceedings, Repayment of Costs, Interest on Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Assessment of Costs Consequential Orders Fraud in Civil Proceedings Repayment of Costs Interest on Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balber Kaur Takhar

Claimant

Gracefield Developments Limited

Defendant

Kewal Singh Krishan

Defendant

Parkash Kaur Krishan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Consequential Orders Following Judgment Setting Aside Previous Order and Awarding Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis
  2. 2 Whether payment on account of costs should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether Defendants should repay costs previously paid by Claimant under a set aside order

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants' conduct, including forgery and dishonesty, took the case out of the norm and justified indemnity costs; costs paid under a set aside order must be repaid; Defendants are liable for wasted trial costs caused by their fraud.

Court Disposition

Claimant's applications granted in full, subject to quantification and liberty to apply on certain issues.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Claimant's costs on the indemnity basis, less 10% deduction, if not agreed.
  • Defendants to pay £204,623 on account of costs within 28 days, with liberty to apply.