Pasricha v Pasricha (Rev 1)

Pasricha v Pasricha (Rev 1)

The judge below erred in concluding he lacked jurisdiction to make a costs order; CPR 3.14 and 3.18 provide discretion to vary costs budgets and make costs orders in light of material changes. However, since neither party was at fault for the adjournment (which was due to judicial unavailability), the proper...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Prem Nath Pasricha; Respondent: Bhavisha Pasricha
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Adjournment, Relief From Sanctions, Costs Budgeting
Civil Procedure Costs Adjournment Relief From Sanctions Costs Budgeting

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prem Nath Pasricha

Appellant

Bhavisha Pasricha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge below had jurisdiction to make a costs order in favour of the appellant despite costs budgeting limitations
  2. 2 Whether the discretion to order costs should be re-exercised given the circumstances of the adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below erred in concluding he lacked jurisdiction to make a costs order; CPR 3.14 and 3.18 provide discretion to vary costs budgets and make costs orders in light of material changes. However, since neither party was at fault for the adjournment (which was due to judicial unavailability), the proper exercise of discretion is to make no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs below
  • No order as to costs on appeal