Rokvic v Peacock

Rokvic v Peacock

There was a binding agreement for payment and discontinuance, but no agreement on costs. The default rule on costs on discontinuance does not apply because the claimant succeeded in recovering the full net sum claimed. The claimant is entitled to her costs as a matter of discretion.

Parties
Claimant: Rokvic; Defendant: Peacock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement (adjudication Enforcement) / Judgment on Costs Following Settlement of Enforcement Proceedings
Outcome
Claimant awarded costs; costs summarily assessed
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Settlement Agreements, Costs on Discontinuance
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Settlement Agreements Costs on Discontinuance

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

Parties

Rokvic

Claimant

Peacock

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement (adjudication Enforcement) / Judgment on Costs Following Settlement of Enforcement Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding settlement agreement between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to costs following discontinuance after settlement

Ratio Decidendi

There was a binding agreement for payment and discontinuance, but no agreement on costs. The default rule on costs on discontinuance does not apply because the claimant succeeded in recovering the full net sum claimed. The claimant is entitled to her costs as a matter of discretion.

Court Disposition

Claimant awarded costs; costs summarily assessed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant's costs of the proceedings, summarily assessed at £5,500, within 14 days