De Sena & Anor v Notaro & Ors [2020] EWHC 1366 (Ch) (01 June 2020)

De Sena & Anor v Notaro & Ors [2020] EWHC 1366 (Ch) (01 June 2020)

The claims were speculative, weak, and unsupported by evidence; claimants unreasonably refused settlement offers and conducted litigation poorly, justifying indemnity costs for all defendants. Costs for inadmissible expert evidence are disallowed as unreasonably incurred. Payments on account are ordered at 90% of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1366 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Carmela De Sena; Claimant: Meltor Developments Limited; Defendant: Joseph Notaro; Defendant: S Notaro Group Limited; Defendant: Bishop Fleming; Defendant: Davies and Partners Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Consequential Matters
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants ordered to pay defendants' costs on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Payments on Account, Pre Action Protocol, Settlement Offers, Expert Evidence Admissibility
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Company Law Costs Indemnity Costs Payments on Account Pre Action Protocol Settlement Offers +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carmela De Sena

Claimant

Meltor Developments Limited

Claimant

Joseph Notaro

Defendant

S Notaro Group Limited

Defendant

Bishop Fleming

Defendant

Davies and Partners Solicitors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Consequential Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis
  2. 2 Whether costs for inadmissible expert evidence should be disallowed
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum for payments on account of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were speculative, weak, and unsupported by evidence; claimants unreasonably refused settlement offers and conducted litigation poorly, justifying indemnity costs for all defendants. Costs for inadmissible expert evidence are disallowed as unreasonably incurred. Payments on account are ordered at 90% of budgeted costs (with adjustments), and payment is to be made within 14 days.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants ordered to pay defendants' costs on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay defendants' costs on indemnity basis, except costs for inadmissible expert evidence for third defendant.
  • Payments on account ordered: 90% of budgeted costs for each defendant (with adjustments for third defendant and first/second defendants' taxation expert).