Bal & Ors v Singh & Ors (Costs)

Bal & Ors v Singh & Ors (Costs)

The court determined that neither a 'no order' order nor full costs recovery would do justice. The claimant achieved significant success in securing proper governance and protection, but failed on some relief and was subject to procedural criticisms. Costs were apportioned: claimant awarded 50% of claim costs, with further allocation among defendants based on their roles; counterclaimants awarded 50% of counterclaim costs, with offsetting and joint/several liability structured proportionately.

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
Civil / Costs Judgment
Outcome
Costs apportioned; claimant awarded 50% of claim costs, counterclaimants awarded 50% of counterclaim costs, offsetting applied, joint and several liability structured among D1, D3, and D8.
Legal Topics
Costs, Injunctions, Governance of Unincorporated Associations, Internal Disputes, Counterclaims
Charity Law Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Governance of Unincorporated Associations Internal Disputes Counterclaims

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
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

Civil / Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following settlement via Tomlin Order
  2. 2 Allocation of costs between claim and counterclaim
  3. 3 Effect of compromise on costs liability

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that neither a 'no order' order nor full costs recovery would do justice. The claimant achieved significant success in securing proper governance and protection, but failed on some relief and was subject to procedural criticisms. Costs were apportioned: claimant awarded 50% of claim costs, with further allocation among defendants based on their roles; counterclaimants awarded 50% of counterclaim costs, with offsetting and joint/several liability structured proportionately.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned; claimant awarded 50% of claim costs, counterclaimants awarded 50% of counterclaim costs, offsetting applied, joint and several liability structured among D1, D3, and D8.

Orders

  • Claimant to recover 50% of claim costs from D1, D3, and D8 (D1 fully liable, D3 jointly and severally liable with D1 for 30%, D8 jointly and severally liable with D1 and D3 for 10%)
  • Counterclaimants to recover 50% of counterclaim costs, offset against claim costs; net sum payable to claimant with liability structured (D1 fully liable, D3 jointly and severally liable with D1 for 60%, D8 jointly and severally liable with D1 and D3 for 20%)