AVB v TDD [2014] EWHC 1663 (QB) (20 May 2014)

AVB v TDD [2014] EWHC 1663 (QB) (20 May 2014)

The Defendant was overall more successful than the Claimant, whose limited success was primarily for the protection of third parties. The Claimant's provocative and unreasonable conduct, including lying to the court, was highly relevant and militated against awarding him costs. The Claimant achieved nothing of value after the Defendant's settlement offer of 26 March 2014, which he should have accepted.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1663 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: AVB; Defendant: TDD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial, Costs Judgment
Outcome
Costs order: Defendant to pay Claimant's costs of the 24 May 2013 application; no order as to costs for 24 May 2013 to 26 March 2014 except Defendant to pay Claimant's enforcement costs for November and December 2013 orders; Claimant to pay Defendant's costs after 26 March 2014.
Legal Topics
Costs, Injunctions, Harassment, Contract
Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Harassment Contract

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AVB

Claimant

TDD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial, Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for the purposes of costs?
  2. 2 How should the court exercise its discretion under CPR r44.2 regarding costs?
  3. 3 What is the relevance of parties' conduct to the costs order?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was overall more successful than the Claimant, whose limited success was primarily for the protection of third parties. The Claimant's provocative and unreasonable conduct, including lying to the court, was highly relevant and militated against awarding him costs. The Claimant achieved nothing of value after the Defendant's settlement offer of 26 March 2014, which he should have accepted.

Court Disposition

Costs order: Defendant to pay Claimant's costs of the 24 May 2013 application; no order as to costs for 24 May 2013 to 26 March 2014 except Defendant to pay Claimant's enforcement costs for November and December 2013 orders; Claimant to pay Defendant's costs after 26 March 2014.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant's costs of the 24 May 2013 application.
  • No order as to costs for 24 May 2013 to 26 March 2014, except Defendant to pay Claimant's enforcement costs for November and December 2013 orders.