Dyson Technology Ltd v Strutt [2007] EWHC 1756 (Ch) (24 July 2007)

Dyson Technology Ltd v Strutt [2007] EWHC 1756 (Ch) (24 July 2007)

Where a costs order awards costs of the action except for a particular issue, only the extra costs solely attributable to that issue are recoverable by the party in whose favour the issue is decided. Common costs relevant to both issues are not to be apportioned unless a part can be distinctly identified as relating...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1756 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Dyson Technology Ltd; Defendant: Mr Ben Strutt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs Assessment) / High Court (chancery Division) Appeal From Master O'hare's Preliminary Rulings on Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Master's approach to apportionment overruled to the extent inconsistent with Medway and Cinema Press principles.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Issue Based Costs Orders, Apportionment of Common Costs
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Assessment Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Issue Based Costs Orders Apportionment of Common Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dyson Technology Ltd

Claimant

Mr Ben Strutt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs Assessment) / High Court (chancery Division) Appeal From Master O'hare's Preliminary Rulings on Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should common costs be divided following an issue-based costs order?
  2. 2 Are costs relating to confidential information evidence attributable solely to the abandoned claim or also to the successful claim?
  3. 3 What is the correct approach to apportionment or division of costs where work is common to multiple issues?

Ratio Decidendi

Where a costs order awards costs of the action except for a particular issue, only the extra costs solely attributable to that issue are recoverable by the party in whose favour the issue is decided. Common costs relevant to both issues are not to be apportioned unless a part can be distinctly identified as relating solely to the excluded issue. The costs judge must divide composite fees where possible, but not apportion general common costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Master's approach to apportionment overruled to the extent inconsistent with Medway and Cinema Press principles.

Orders

  • Only costs solely attributable to the clause 18 claim are recoverable by the Defendant; common costs are not to be apportioned unless a part can be distinctly identified as relating solely to clause 18.
  • Composite fees (e.g. brief fees, witness statement preparation) may be divided where work is separately identifiable as relating to clause 18.