Newall & Anor v Lewis & Ors

Newall & Anor v Lewis & Ors

The consent order must be construed to require the costs judge to distinguish between costs 'of' the proceedings and costs 'incidental to' them, with the latter reserved for further consideration by a Chancery judge. The detailed assessment must be begun again to apply this distinction, as the previous assessment failed to do so.

Parties
Claimant: Lucinda Newall; Claimant: Alexander Newall; Defendant: John North Lewis; Defendant: Richard Middleton; Defendant: Lorna Milne Joicey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decisions of Master Campbell During Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; detailed assessment to be begun again applying the correct distinction between costs 'of' and 'incidental to' the proceedings.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Trustee Removal, Consent Orders, Construction of Legal Documents
Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Costs Assessment Trustee Removal Consent Orders Construction of Legal Documents

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucinda Newall

Claimant

Alexander Newall

Claimant

John North Lewis

Defendant

Richard Middleton

Defendant

Lorna Milne Joicey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decisions of Master Campbell During Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of consent order regarding costs
  2. 2 Recoverability of pre-issue investigative costs
  3. 3 Allocation of costs as 'of' or 'incidental to' proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The consent order must be construed to require the costs judge to distinguish between costs 'of' the proceedings and costs 'incidental to' them, with the latter reserved for further consideration by a Chancery judge. The detailed assessment must be begun again to apply this distinction, as the previous assessment failed to do so.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; detailed assessment to be begun again applying the correct distinction between costs 'of' and 'incidental to' the proceedings.

Orders

  • Detailed assessment of costs to be restarted by the costs judge, applying the distinction between costs 'of' and 'incidental to' the proceedings as per the consent order.
  • Costs incidental to the proceedings to be identified and referred to a Chancery judge for determination.