Steven Ellis & Ors v John Benson Limited

Steven Ellis & Ors v John Benson Limited

The refusal to accept settlement offers and conduct during proceedings did not constitute unreasonable conduct of a high degree or take the case outside the norm to justify indemnity costs. Partial lack of success did not warrant a reduction in costs. Payment on account of costs at 85% of budgeted costs was appropriate. Permission to appeal was refused as the case was fact-specific and did not raise points with a real prospect of success.

Parties
Claimant: Steven Ellis; Claimant: Stephen Hayward; Claimant: Wayne Monk; Claimant: Kevin Patterson; Claimant: Adrian Robins; Claimant: Janine Rusted; Claimant: John Stubbings; Claimant: Susanna Summers; Claimant: Robert Szatkowski; Claimant: Adam Chapman; Claimant: Amanda Cherry; Claimant: Tomasz Dzierzanowski; Claimant: Michele George; Claimant: Patrick Mackintosh; Claimant: Paul Maples; Claimant: Joanne Newman; Claimant: Helen Patmore; Claimant: Andrew Tanfield; Claimant: Sinead Thornton; Claimant: Claire Freeman; Defendant: John Benson Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Consequentials Judgment After Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded to Represented Claimants; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Franchise Agreements, Implied Terms, Repudiatory Breach, Permission to Appeal
Contract Law Civil Procedure Costs Franchise Agreements Implied Terms Repudiatory Breach Permission to Appeal

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Ellis

Claimant

Stephen Hayward

Claimant

Wayne Monk

Claimant

Kevin Patterson

Claimant

Adrian Robins

Claimant

Janine Rusted

Claimant

John Stubbings

Claimant

Susanna Summers

Claimant

Robert Szatkowski

Claimant

Adam Chapman

Claimant

Amanda Cherry

Claimant

Tomasz Dzierzanowski

Claimant

Michele George

Claimant

Patrick Mackintosh

Claimant

Paul Maples

Claimant

Joanne Newman

Claimant

Helen Patmore

Claimant

Andrew Tanfield

Claimant

Sinead Thornton

Claimant

Claire Freeman

Claimant

John Benson Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Consequentials Judgment After Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded
  2. 2 Whether costs should be reduced for partial success
  3. 3 Whether payment on account of costs should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to accept settlement offers and conduct during proceedings did not constitute unreasonable conduct of a high degree or take the case outside the norm to justify indemnity costs. Partial lack of success did not warrant a reduction in costs. Payment on account of costs at 85% of budgeted costs was appropriate. Permission to appeal was refused as the case was fact-specific and did not raise points with a real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded to Represented Claimants; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Represented Claimants awarded costs on the standard basis with no reduction.
  • Payment on account of costs ordered at 85% of budgeted costs, excluding costs attributable to Unrepresented Claimants.