St Francis Group 1 Limited & Ors v John Thomas Kelly & Anor

St Francis Group 1 Limited & Ors v John Thomas Kelly & Anor

The court held that the first Defendant’s Points of Dispute, save for a limited number of specifically identified items, were inadequately particularised and failed to comply with the requirements set out in Ainsworth and Practice Direction 47. The generic, repetitive objections did not identify which items were challenged or the grounds for challenge, and thus did not provide the Claimants with a fair opportunity to respond or allow the court to manage the assessment proportionately. Accordingly, the majority of the preliminary points and item-by-item objections were struck out.

Parties
Claimant: ST FRANCIS GROUP 1 LIMITED; Claimant: ST FRANCIS GROUP 2 LIMITED; Claimant: DSM SFG GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED; Defendant: Mr JOHN THOMAS KELLY; Defendant: LANSDOWNE GROUP LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Detailed Assessment Ruling
Outcome
Majority of Points of Dispute struck out; limited specific objections to proceed to assessment.
Legal Topics
Detailed Assessment, Points of Dispute, Indemnity Costs, Disclosure, Solicitor Client Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Detailed Assessment Points of Dispute Indemnity Costs Disclosure Solicitor Client Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ST FRANCIS GROUP 1 LIMITED

Claimant

ST FRANCIS GROUP 2 LIMITED

Claimant

DSM SFG GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED

Claimant

Mr JOHN THOMAS KELLY

Defendant

LANSDOWNE GROUP LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Detailed Assessment Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Points of Dispute raised by the first Defendant are sufficiently particularised to be considered on detailed assessment.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants are entitled to indemnity for all reasonable and properly incurred costs under the Claim Waiver.
  3. 3 Whether specific categories of costs (including in-house legal costs and management time) are recoverable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the first Defendant’s Points of Dispute, save for a limited number of specifically identified items, were inadequately particularised and failed to comply with the requirements set out in Ainsworth and Practice Direction 47. The generic, repetitive objections did not identify which items were challenged or the grounds for challenge, and thus did not provide the Claimants with a fair opportunity to respond or allow the court to manage the assessment proportionately. Accordingly, the majority of the preliminary points and item-by-item objections were struck out.

Court Disposition

Majority of Points of Dispute struck out; limited specific objections to proceed to assessment.

Orders

  • Preliminary point 1 struck out except for two specific items identified by the first Defendant.
  • Preliminary points 2-4 already addressed.