Bold v Urbisity Ltd

Bold v Urbisity Ltd

Although the defendant achieved a modest reduction in its liability for the claimant's costs, this was far less than it sought. The appropriate order is that the defendant pays 60% of the claimant's costs of the appeal, reflecting the limited success.

Parties
Claimant: Carl John Bold; Defendant: Urbisity Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs) / Post Trial, Appeal on Costs Order
Outcome
Defendant to pay 60% of claimant's costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Appeals, Part 36 Offers
Civil Procedure Employment Law Costs Assessment Appeals Part 36 Offers

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl John Bold

Claimant

Urbisity Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs) / Post Trial, Appeal on Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate order for the costs of the appeal after partial success in reducing liability for assessment costs?
  2. 2 Should offers made during negotiations affect the costs order for the appeal?

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendant achieved a modest reduction in its liability for the claimant's costs, this was far less than it sought. The appropriate order is that the defendant pays 60% of the claimant's costs of the appeal, reflecting the limited success.

Court Disposition

Defendant to pay 60% of claimant's costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay 60% of claimant's costs of the appeal.
  • Costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.