Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd [2020] EWHC 2128 (TCC) (03 August 2020)

Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd [2020] EWHC 2128 (TCC) (03 August 2020)

The claimant is the successful party in substance and reality, having succeeded on six of seven principal claims and recovered a substantial sum, though less than claimed. However, due to the claimant's relative lack of success, failure to beat the defendant's Part 36 offer, and conduct in pursuing certain claims without sufficient evidential basis, a departure from full costs recovery is justified. Indemnity costs are not warranted as the claimant's conduct was not significantly unreasonable or out of the norm.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2128 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Blackpool Borough Council; Defendant: Volkerfitzpatrick Limited; Third Party: Range Roofing & Cladding Ltd; Fourth Party: RPS Planning & Development Ltd; Fifth Party: Caunton Engineering Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction Dispute / Supplementary Judgment on Costs Following Principal Judgment
Outcome
Costs order: Claimant awarded costs against defendant, but with a significant reduction to reflect relative lack of success and failure to beat Part 36 offer. No indemnity costs awarded against claimant. Caunton's costs to be paid by defendant, not on indemnity basis. Interim payments on account of costs ordered....
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Indemnity Costs, Remedial Works, Design Life Obligations
Construction Law Civil Procedure Costs Part 36 Offers Indemnity Costs Remedial Works Design Life Obligations

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 18
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blackpool Borough Council

Claimant

Volkerfitzpatrick Limited

Defendant

Range Roofing & Cladding Ltd

Third Party

RPS Planning & Development Ltd

Fourth Party

Caunton Engineering Ltd

Fifth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Construction Dispute / Supplementary Judgment on Costs Following Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for the purposes of costs?
  2. 2 What are the costs consequences of the Part 36 and WPSATC offers?
  3. 3 Should there be a departure from the general rule on costs due to relative lack of success or conduct?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is the successful party in substance and reality, having succeeded on six of seven principal claims and recovered a substantial sum, though less than claimed. However, due to the claimant's relative lack of success, failure to beat the defendant's Part 36 offer, and conduct in pursuing certain claims without sufficient evidential basis, a departure from full costs recovery is justified. Indemnity costs are not warranted as the claimant's conduct was not significantly unreasonable or out of the norm.

Court Disposition

Costs order: Claimant awarded costs against defendant, but with a significant reduction to reflect relative lack of success and failure to beat Part 36 offer. No indemnity costs awarded against claimant. Caunton's costs to be paid by defendant, not on indemnity basis. Interim payments on account of costs ordered....

Orders

  • Claimant to recover a proportion of its costs from defendant, reduced for lack of success and failure to beat Part 36 offer.
  • Defendant to pay Caunton's costs of defending the additional claim, not on indemnity basis.