Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin & Anor [2013] EWHC 583 (Ch) (18 March 2013)

Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin & Anor [2013] EWHC 583 (Ch) (18 March 2013)

The claimant was overall successful but failed on significant issues (notably misrepresentation and certain warranty claims) that justified a deduction from its costs. The court ordered that the claimant receive 60% of its costs. The claimant beat its Part 36 offers as against Mr Breslin, so the enhanced...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 583 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Sycamore Bidco Limited; Defendant: Sean Breslin; Defendant: Andrew Dawson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation (costs Judgment) / Post Judgment (costs, Interim Payments, Permission to Appeal)
Outcome
Claimant awarded 60% of its costs; enhanced Part 36 consequences (indemnity costs and enhanced interest) apply to Mr Breslin but not to Mr Dawson; specific costs applications included as costs in the case; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Damages, Interest on Costs, Issue Based Costs Orders, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Part 36 Offers Damages Interest on Costs Issue Based Costs Orders Permission to Appeal

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

Parties

Sycamore Bidco Limited

Claimant

Sean Breslin

Defendant

Andrew Dawson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Litigation (costs Judgment) / Post Judgment (costs, Interim Payments, Permission to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be entitled to all its costs or whether a deduction should be made for issues on which it failed and its conduct; Whether the normal consequences of beating a Part 36 offer should apply; How costs should be apportioned between defendants; Whether specific costs (e.g., disclosure applications) should be included; What interest should be awarded on costs; Whether permission to appeal should be granted; Whether there should be a stay of enforcement pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was overall successful but failed on significant issues (notably misrepresentation and certain warranty claims) that justified a deduction from its costs. The court ordered that the claimant receive 60% of its costs. The claimant beat its Part 36 offers as against Mr Breslin, so the enhanced consequences of CPR 36.14 apply to him, but not to Mr Dawson, as the offer was not beaten in his case due to his limited liability. Specific costs (e.g., disclosure applications) were allowed as costs in the case. No apportionment of costs between defendants was ordered, and no further deductions were made for conduct. Permission to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Claimant awarded 60% of its costs; enhanced Part 36 consequences (indemnity costs and enhanced interest) apply to Mr Breslin but not to Mr Dawson; specific costs applications included as costs in the case; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Claimant to receive 60% of its costs of the proceedings, both before and after the Part 36 offer.
  • Costs to be assessed if not agreed.