Sahota v Moor & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 824 (23 May 2002)

Sahota v Moor & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 824 (23 May 2002)

The application for permission to appeal is refused because the costs order was a matter of judicial discretion, no point of principle or practice arises, and appeals on costs alone are rarely permitted.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 824
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ravinder Paul Singh Sahota; Defendant: Thomas Malcolm Moore; Defendant: Michael Grahame Poskitt; Defendant/applicant: Oluremi Akin Agbaje
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Partnership Dissolution, Appeals Procedure
Civil Procedure Partnership Law Costs Orders Partnership Dissolution Appeals Procedure

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ravinder Paul Singh Sahota

Claimant/respondent

Thomas Malcolm Moore

Defendant

Michael Grahame Poskitt

Defendant

Oluremi Akin Agbaje

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order against Dr Agbaje should be varied on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal should grant permission to appeal on costs alone
  3. 3 Whether the existence of an indemnity affects the costs or enforceability

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal is refused because the costs order was a matter of judicial discretion, no point of principle or practice arises, and appeals on costs alone are rarely permitted.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused