Hart & Anor v Large & Ors

Hart & Anor v Large & Ors

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

Parties
Claimant: Mr Chris Hart; Claimant: Mrs Kerry Hart; Defendant: Mr Richard Large; Claimant: 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 Application
Outcome
Costs of the stay application to be costs in the appeal; terms of the undertaking clarified.
Legal Topics
Costs, Stay of Execution, Damages, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Stay of Execution Damages Appeal Procedure

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 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

Claimant

Harrison Sutton Partnership

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial, Costs and Stay of Execution Application

Legal Issues

  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 clear winner in the stay application; both parties acted reasonably in the circumstances. 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.

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, provided these sums are expended solely on costs relating to the appeal.