Hart & Anor v Large & Ors [2020] EWHC 2306 (TCC) (24 August 2020)

Hart & Anor v Large & Ors [2020] EWHC 2306 (TCC) (24 August 2020)

Neither party can be described as the winner on the stay application; both parties acted reasonably in the circumstances, and the costs of the stay application are to be costs in the appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2306 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Chris Hart; Claimant: Mrs Kerry Hart; Defendant: Mr Richard Large; Defendant: Michelmores LLP; Defendant: Harrison Sutton Partnership
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial, Costs and Stay of Execution Applications
Outcome
Costs of the stay application to be costs in the appeal; terms of the undertaking clarified for the Defendant regarding retained funds.
Legal Topics
Costs, Stay of Execution, Damages, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Stay of Execution Damages Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Chris Hart

Claimant

Mrs Kerry Hart

Claimant

Mr Richard Large

Defendant

Michelmores LLP

Defendant

Harrison Sutton Partnership

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial, Costs and Stay of Execution Applications

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the stay application
  2. 2 Terms of the undertaking required for the stay of execution

Ratio Decidendi

Neither party can be described as the winner on the stay application; both parties acted reasonably in the circumstances, and the costs of the stay application are to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Costs of the stay application to be costs in the appeal; terms of the undertaking clarified for the Defendant regarding retained funds.

Orders

  • Costs of the stay application will be costs in the appeal.
  • Defendant may retain £13,000 for work in progress and £24,000 for appeal costs, to be used solely for those purposes.