Dover Harbour Board v ISS & Ors [2007] EWHC 2015 (TCC) (13 July 2007)

Dover Harbour Board v ISS & Ors [2007] EWHC 2015 (TCC) (13 July 2007)

The Claimant discharged the burden to show that the usual costs order should not apply due to substantial change in circumstances, proportionality, and minimal prospect of recovery from Mr Dobson; discontinuance granted with no order as to costs.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2015 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Dover Harbour Board; Defendant: ISS; Third Defendant: Mr Dobson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under CPR 38.6 for Discontinuance / Discontinuance Application and Costs Determination
Outcome
Application for discontinuance granted; no order as to costs; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Discontinuance, Costs, Conspiracy, Wrongful Dismissal
Civil Procedure Fraud Employment Law Discontinuance Costs Conspiracy Wrongful Dismissal

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

Parties

Dover Harbour Board

Claimant

ISS

Defendant

Mr Dobson

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under CPR 38.6 for Discontinuance / Discontinuance Application and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant should be liable for the Third Defendant's costs upon discontinuance under CPR 38.6
  2. 2 Whether discontinuance should be ordered without costs against the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant discharged the burden to show that the usual costs order should not apply due to substantial change in circumstances, proportionality, and minimal prospect of recovery from Mr Dobson; discontinuance granted with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application for discontinuance granted; no order as to costs; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Action against Mr Dobson discontinued with no order as to costs.
  • Application for permission to appeal refused.