McLinden v Redbond

McLinden v Redbond

The Chief Registrar erred in law by not assessing costs based on the detailed breakdown provided and instead applying an arbitrary tariff; the appeal is allowed, and the appellate court substitutes its own assessment of costs.

Parties
Appellant: John McLinden; Respondent: Kevin Redbond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Assessment of Costs, Statutory Demand, Indemnity Costs, Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Summary Assessment of Costs Statutory Demand Indemnity Costs Proportionality of Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John McLinden

Appellant

Kevin Redbond

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Registrar erred in the summary assessment of costs following the dismissal of an application to set aside a statutory demand
  2. 2 Whether costs should be assessed on a standard or indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

The Chief Registrar erred in law by not assessing costs based on the detailed breakdown provided and instead applying an arbitrary tariff; the appeal is allowed, and the appellate court substitutes its own assessment of costs.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Chief Registrar's costs order set aside
  • Creditor's costs before the Chief Registrar summarily assessed at £2,863.75