Orchard (Developments) Holdings Plc v Reuters Ltd

Orchard (Developments) Holdings Plc v Reuters Ltd

The judge's order on costs was within the broad discretion afforded to trial judges, and the presence of a lying witness does not automatically warrant a different costs order; no general principle arises and the application for a freestanding appeal on costs is refused.

Parties
Appellant: Orchard (Developments) Holdings PLC; Respondent: Reuters Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal on Costs
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Appeals, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Costs Appeals Judicial Discretion

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orchard (Developments) Holdings PLC

Appellant

Reuters Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding costs to the successful defendant despite a finding that the defendant's witness was lying
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of a lying witness should affect the costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's order on costs was within the broad discretion afforded to trial judges, and the presence of a lying witness does not automatically warrant a different costs order; no general principle arises and the application for a freestanding appeal on costs is refused.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal on costs refused