Hutchinson & Anor v Neale & Anor

Hutchinson & Anor v Neale & Anor

The trial judge erred by failing to start from the general rule that costs follow the event and by depriving the successful defendants of all their costs due to dishonesty. The proper approach is to award the successful party their costs, subject to deductions for the dishonest aspects of their case and to compensate the claimants for the costs of responding to dishonesty. The judge's order was set aside and replaced with an order that the claimants pay 70% of the defendants' costs, with specific indemnity costs awarded to the claimants for the dishonest aspects and the false allegation against Mr Neale.

Parties
Appellant: Peter Hutchinson; Appellant: Susan Penning; Respondent: Michael Neale; Respondent: Ann Neale
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Boundary Disputes, Dishonesty in Litigation, Indemnity Costs, Calderbank Offers
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Orders Boundary Disputes Dishonesty in Litigation Indemnity Costs Calderbank Offers

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Hutchinson

Appellant

Susan Penning

Appellant

Michael Neale

Respondent

Ann Neale

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in his approach to costs where the successful party was found to have acted dishonestly
  2. 2 Whether dishonesty by the successful party should wholly displace the general rule that costs follow the event
  3. 3 What adjustments to costs orders are appropriate where dishonesty is established

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by failing to start from the general rule that costs follow the event and by depriving the successful defendants of all their costs due to dishonesty. The proper approach is to award the successful party their costs, subject to deductions for the dishonest aspects of their case and to compensate the claimants for the costs of responding to dishonesty. The judge's order was set aside and replaced with an order that the claimants pay 70% of the defendants' costs, with specific indemnity costs awarded to the claimants for the dishonest aspects and the false allegation against Mr Neale.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Paragraph 6 of the trial judge's order set aside and replaced: claimants to pay 70% of defendants’ costs of the action, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis.
  • Paragraph 14 of the trial judge's order (requiring defendants to pay £12,500 on account of costs) set aside.