Victus Estates (2) Limited v Shawbrook Bank Limited

Victus Estates (2) Limited v Shawbrook Bank Limited

The costs in the county court and on appeal must reflect the ultimate outcome, not the result at first instance. Shawbrook and OneSavings, having succeeded on the main issues on appeal, are entitled to the majority of their costs, subject to deductions for issues on which they did not prevail. The court will not remit the costs issue to the county court but will determine it directly, apportioning costs to reflect the parties' relative success and failure before and after the amendments to the pleadings.

Parties
Appellant: Shawbrook Bank Ltd; Appellant: OneSavings Bank plc; Respondent: Monica Munroe; Respondent: Julietta Sonia Benjamin; Respondent: Victus Estates (2) Limited; Respondent: Victus Estates (3) Limited; Respondent: Deepak Raj Agrawal; Respondent: Simple To Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs) / Post Judgment, Costs Determination After Appeal
Outcome
Costs apportioned; orders for payment of costs by respondents to appellants, with stays pending appeal.
Legal Topics
Costs, Subrogation, Rectification of Register, Sham Transactions
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Subrogation Rectification of Register Sham Transactions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shawbrook Bank Ltd

Appellant

OneSavings Bank plc

Appellant

Monica Munroe

Respondent

Julietta Sonia Benjamin

Respondent

Victus Estates (2) Limited

Respondent

Victus Estates (3) Limited

Respondent

Deepak Raj Agrawal

Respondent

Simple To Finance Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs) / Post Judgment, Costs Determination After Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs in county court and on appeal
  2. 2 Effect of late amendments to pleadings alleging sham
  3. 3 Proper approach to costs where success is divided

Ratio Decidendi

The costs in the county court and on appeal must reflect the ultimate outcome, not the result at first instance. Shawbrook and OneSavings, having succeeded on the main issues on appeal, are entitled to the majority of their costs, subject to deductions for issues on which they did not prevail. The court will not remit the costs issue to the county court but will determine it directly, apportioning costs to reflect the parties' relative success and failure before and after the amendments to the pleadings.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned; orders for payment of costs by respondents to appellants, with stays pending appeal.

Orders

  • Ms Munroe to pay 95% of Shawbrook's county court costs up to 8 October 2019, excluding costs of order for sale application.
  • Ms Benjamin to pay 95% of OneSavings' county court costs up to 28 November 2019.