Mustafa Erdem Baldudak v Mark Matteo (Costs)

Mustafa Erdem Baldudak v Mark Matteo (Costs)

The Claimant is the successful party and entitled to costs under CPR 44.2(2). A reduction of 15% is warranted due to conduct regarding disclosure and non-reliance on witness statement. There is no good reason to depart from the usual rule for payment on account; set-off arguments based on contingent costs from previous proceedings are misconceived. The Defendant is ordered to pay 85% of the Claimant’s costs, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed, and £90,000 on account.

Parties
Claimant: Mustafa Erdem Baldudak; Defendant: Mark Matteo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Costs Determination
Outcome
Claimant awarded 85% of his costs, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed, and a payment on account of £90,000.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Issue Estoppel, Election, Costs Orders, Disclosure, Payment on Account
Trusts Property Civil Procedure Resulting Trusts Issue Estoppel Election Costs Orders Disclosure +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 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustafa Erdem Baldudak

Claimant

Mark Matteo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for costs purposes?
  2. 2 Should the Claimant's costs be reduced due to conduct and non-disclosure?
  3. 3 Is the Claimant entitled to a payment on account of costs?

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant is the successful party and entitled to costs under CPR 44.2(2). A reduction of 15% is warranted due to conduct regarding disclosure and non-reliance on witness statement. There is no good reason to depart from the usual rule for payment on account; set-off arguments based on contingent costs from previous proceedings are misconceived. The Defendant is ordered to pay 85% of the Claimant’s costs, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed, and £90,000 on account.

Court Disposition

Claimant awarded 85% of his costs, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed, and a payment on account of £90,000.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay 85% of Claimant’s costs, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
  • Defendant to pay £90,000 on account of Claimant’s costs.