Bal & Ors v Singh & Ors (Costs) [2018] EWHC 119 (Ch) (29 January 2018)

Bal & Ors v Singh & Ors (Costs) [2018] EWHC 119 (Ch) (29 January 2018)

Claimant achieved significant success in securing proper governance and administration of the Gurdwara, justifying partial recovery of costs. Procedural and conduct criticisms warrant reduction. Apportionment reflects degree of involvement and relief obtained against each defendant. Counterclaimants entitled to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 119 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Malkit Singh Bal; Defendant: Jaswinder Singh; Defendant: Santokh Singh Purewal; Defendant: Sukhbir Singh; Defendant: Sukhvir Singh; Defendant: Manjinder Singh; Defendant: Manpreet Singh; Defendant: Harsimrenjeet Singh Khehra; Defendant: Gurwinder Singh Liddar; Defendant: Male 1; Defendant: Male 2; Defendant: Persons Unknown; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment Following Settlement (tomlin Order) in Civil Litigation / Post Trial, Costs Determination
Outcome
Partial costs awarded to claimant and counterclaimants, with apportionment and offset.
Legal Topics
Costs, Injunctions, Governance of Unincorporated Associations, Charity Commission Authorisation, Tomlin Order, Counterclaim
Charity Law Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Governance of Unincorporated Associations Charity Commission Authorisation Tomlin Order Counterclaim

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malkit Singh Bal

Claimant

Jaswinder Singh

Defendant

Santokh Singh Purewal

Defendant

Sukhbir Singh

Defendant

Sukhvir Singh

Defendant

Manjinder Singh

Defendant

Manpreet Singh

Defendant

Harsimrenjeet Singh Khehra

Defendant

Gurwinder Singh Liddar

Defendant

Male 1

Defendant

Male 2

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Judgment Following Settlement (tomlin Order) in Civil Litigation / Post Trial, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following settlement under Tomlin Order
  2. 2 Allocation of costs between claim and counterclaim
  3. 3 Extent of success and conduct affecting costs

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant achieved significant success in securing proper governance and administration of the Gurdwara, justifying partial recovery of costs. Procedural and conduct criticisms warrant reduction. Apportionment reflects degree of involvement and relief obtained against each defendant. Counterclaimants entitled to partial recovery of costs, offset against claimant's costs.

Court Disposition

Partial costs awarded to claimant and counterclaimants, with apportionment and offset.

Orders

  • Claimant awarded 50% of costs of claim: D1 jointly and severally liable for full 50%, D3 jointly and severally liable with D1 for 30%, D8 jointly and severally liable with D1 and D3 for 10%.
  • Counterclaimants (D1-6 and D8) awarded 50% of costs of counterclaim, offset against claimant's costs; net sum payable to claimant apportioned: D1 fully liable, D3 jointly and severally liable with D1 for 60%, D8 jointly and severally liable with D1 and D3 for 20%.