PGI Group Limited v Magret Thomas & 30 Others

PGI Group Limited v Magret Thomas & 30 Others

Permission to appeal was refused because none of the three pre-conditions for a CCO were met, the judge exercised his discretion properly, proportionality rules were correctly applied, and the costs of proceedings in Malawi were irrelevant to the UK litigation. The proposed CCO would stifle valid claims and was not justified.

Parties
Applicant: PGI Group Limited; Respondents: Magret Thomas & 30 Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on Appeal From High Court, Queens Bench Division
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs Capping Orders, Proportionality, Costs Budgeting, Group Litigation, Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Costs Law Costs Capping Orders Proportionality Costs Budgeting Group Litigation Jurisdiction

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PGI Group Limited

Applicant

Magret Thomas & 30 Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on Appeal From High Court, Queens Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing a Costs Capping Order (CCO)
  2. 2 Application of proportionality rules to costs
  3. 3 Relevance of costs incurred in alternative forum (Malawi)

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because none of the three pre-conditions for a CCO were met, the judge exercised his discretion properly, proportionality rules were correctly applied, and the costs of proceedings in Malawi were irrelevant to the UK litigation. The proposed CCO would stifle valid claims and was not justified.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused