Igloo Regeneration (GP) Ltd & Ors v Powell Williams Partnership

Igloo Regeneration (GP) Ltd & Ors v Powell Williams Partnership

The claimants’ conduct, particularly their failure to settle at a figure they themselves had offered and the unjustified continuation of the case after clear judicial warnings and expert evidence issues, justified indemnity costs from the Monday after the hearing before His Honour Judge Halbert. Up to that date, standard costs apply. Permission to appeal is refused as there is no realistic prospect of success and the issues are factual, not suitable for appellate review.

Parties
Claimant: Igloo Regeneration (GP) Limited; Claimant: Igloo Regeneration (Nominee) Limited; Claimant: Igloo Regeneration Limited; Claimant: Igloo Regeneration Partnership; Defendant: Powell Williams Partnership
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial, Costs Ruling and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Claim dismissed; costs awarded to defendant; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Settlement Offers, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Indemnity Costs Settlement Offers Permission to Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Igloo Regeneration (GP) Limited

Claimant

Igloo Regeneration (Nominee) Limited

Claimant

Igloo Regeneration Limited

Claimant

Igloo Regeneration Partnership

Claimant

Powell Williams Partnership

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial, Costs Ruling and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to indemnity costs and from what date
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' conduct justified indemnity costs
  3. 3 Whether permission to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants’ conduct, particularly their failure to settle at a figure they themselves had offered and the unjustified continuation of the case after clear judicial warnings and expert evidence issues, justified indemnity costs from the Monday after the hearing before His Honour Judge Halbert. Up to that date, standard costs apply. Permission to appeal is refused as there is no realistic prospect of success and the issues are factual, not suitable for appellate review.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; costs awarded to defendant; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Defendant to have its costs on the standard basis up to the Monday after the hearing before His Honour Judge Halbert and indemnity costs thereafter.
  • Permission to appeal refused.