Hall v Harris & Ors

Hall v Harris & Ors

The appropriate order is that proposed by respondents, reflecting the issues raised and findings. Respondents are overall winners but concessions warrant a 25% discount on costs; leading counsel's costs excluded. Trial costs order stands as concessions were not properly developed before the judge.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Colin Hall; Respondent: Gerald Harris; Respondent: Mrs Cynthia Harris; Respondent: Mrs Shirley Moore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Outstanding Issues
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Appeals, Declarations
Civil Procedure Costs Appeals Declarations

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Colin Hall

Appellant

Gerald Harris

Respondent

Mrs Cynthia Harris

Respondent

Mrs Shirley Moore

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Outstanding Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 appropriate form of order following appeal
  2. 2 allocation of costs between parties

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate order is that proposed by respondents, reflecting the issues raised and findings. Respondents are overall winners but concessions warrant a 25% discount on costs; leading counsel's costs excluded. Trial costs order stands as concessions were not properly developed before the judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Revised declarations substituted as per paragraphs [40], [46], and [52] of main judgment.
  • Respondents awarded 75% of their overall costs of appeal and cross-appeal, excluding leading counsel's costs.