Ashraful Alam Khokan v Jawad Hossain Nirjhor (Costs)

Ashraful Alam Khokan v Jawad Hossain Nirjhor (Costs)

The Defendant is the successful party following the automatic strike out of the claim for non-payment of a costs order. There is no good reason to depart from the general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party's costs. The Claimant's conduct, including evasiveness regarding finances and late abandonment of the claim, supports application of the general rule. The Defendant's pre-action and ADR conduct, and the merits of the claim, do not justify a different order. The Defendant is permitted to vary his costs budget only in relation to significant developments raised at the PTR or consequential matters. Indemnity costs are not justified as the Claimant's conduct does not...

Parties
Claimant: Ashraful Alam Khokan; Defendant: Jawad Hossain Nirjhor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation) / Post Strike Out, Costs Determination
Outcome
Claimant to pay Defendant's costs on the standard basis; limited variation to Defendant's costs budget allowed; Defendant's costs of consequential matters summarily assessed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Strike Out, Indemnity Costs, Costs Budget Variation, Pre Action Protocol, Alternative Dispute Resolution
Civil Procedure Defamation Media Law Costs Strike Out Indemnity Costs Costs Budget Variation Pre Action Protocol +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashraful Alam Khokan

Claimant

Jawad Hossain Nirjhor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation) / Post Strike Out, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the general rule on costs applies following strike out for non-payment of costs order
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is entitled to indemnity costs
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's costs budget should be varied

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant is the successful party following the automatic strike out of the claim for non-payment of a costs order. There is no good reason to depart from the general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party's costs. The Claimant's conduct, including evasiveness regarding finances and late abandonment of the claim, supports application of the general rule. The Defendant's pre-action and ADR conduct, and the merits of the claim, do not justify a different order. The Defendant is permitted to vary his costs budget only in relation to significant developments raised at the PTR or consequential matters. Indemnity costs are not justified as the Claimant's conduct does not...

Court Disposition

Claimant to pay Defendant's costs on the standard basis; limited variation to Defendant's costs budget allowed; Defendant's costs of consequential matters summarily assessed.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendant's costs of the claim on the standard basis.
  • Defendant permitted to vary costs budget only as specified in the judgment.