Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin & Anor

Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin & Anor

The claimant was the overall winner but pursued significant failed claims (notably misrepresentation and commission/rebate issues) that justified a 40% deduction from its recoverable costs. The claimant beat its Part 36 offers as against Mr Breslin, so the enhanced Part 36 consequences (indemnity costs and 8% interest) apply to him, but not to Mr Dawson, whose liability was capped and did not exceed the offer. Interest on costs is awarded at the same rate as on damages (3%/2.5% above base rate), not the higher claimed rate. Permission to appeal is granted, and a stay of execution is ordered pending appeal, subject to escrow and undertakings. Interim payments on costs are ordered. Set-off...

Parties
Claimant: Sycamore Bidco Limited; Defendant: Sean Breslin; Defendant: Andrew Dawson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial/civil Litigation (costs and Post Judgment Applications) / Post Judgment Ruling on Costs, Interim Payments, Permission to Appeal, and Related Applications
Outcome
Claimant awarded 60% of its costs (i.e., 40% deduction) against both defendants; Part 36 indemnity costs and 8% interest apply to Mr Breslin only; permission to appeal granted; stay of execution ordered pending appeal; interim payments on costs and LTIPs claim ordered; set-off of LTIPs claim allowed.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Part 36 Offers, Interest on Costs, Permission to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Set Off of Judgments
Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Costs Orders Part 36 Offers Interest on Costs Permission to Appeal Stay of Execution +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sycamore Bidco Limited

Claimant

Sean Breslin

Defendant

Andrew Dawson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/civil Litigation (costs and Post Judgment Applications) / Post Judgment Ruling on Costs, Interim Payments, Permission to Appeal, and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be deprived of a proportion of its costs for pursuing failed claims and conduct of litigation
  2. 2 Whether the normal consequences of beating a Part 36 offer should apply to both defendants
  3. 3 Appropriate rate and period for interest on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was the overall winner but pursued significant failed claims (notably misrepresentation and commission/rebate issues) that justified a 40% deduction from its recoverable costs. The claimant beat its Part 36 offers as against Mr Breslin, so the enhanced Part 36 consequences (indemnity costs and 8% interest) apply to him, but not to Mr Dawson, whose liability was capped and did not exceed the offer. Interest on costs is awarded at the same rate as on damages (3%/2.5% above base rate), not the higher claimed rate. Permission to appeal is granted, and a stay of execution is ordered pending appeal, subject to escrow and undertakings. Interim payments on costs are ordered. Set-off...

Court Disposition

Claimant awarded 60% of its costs (i.e., 40% deduction) against both defendants; Part 36 indemnity costs and 8% interest apply to Mr Breslin only; permission to appeal granted; stay of execution ordered pending appeal; interim payments on costs and LTIPs claim ordered; set-off of LTIPs claim allowed.

Orders

  • Claimant to recover 60% of its costs from both defendants, subject to assessment.
  • Costs relating to Rees Pollock and specific disclosure applications to be costs in the case.