Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd

Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd

Claimant is the successful party in substance, but failed to accept a well-judged Part 36 offer and had significant lack of success on major claims. Costs orders are adjusted: defendant pays 80% of claimant’s costs up to 5 September 2019; claimant pays 80% of defendant’s costs thereafter, including additional claims against Caunton and RPS. Caunton’s costs are paid by defendant up to 5 September 2019 and by claimant thereafter. No indemnity costs awarded. Interim payments ordered for Caunton.

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 / Supplementary Judgment on Costs After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Costs apportioned between parties based on success and conduct; no indemnity costs; interim payments ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs, Design Life Obligations, Remedial Works, Part 36 Offers, Indemnity Costs, Multi Party Litigation
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Costs Design Life Obligations Remedial Works Part 36 Offers Indemnity Costs +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 / Supplementary Judgment on Costs After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for costs purposes
  2. 2 Effect of Part 36 and WPSATC offers on costs
  3. 3 Claimant's relative lack of success and conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant is the successful party in substance, but failed to accept a well-judged Part 36 offer and had significant lack of success on major claims. Costs orders are adjusted: defendant pays 80% of claimant’s costs up to 5 September 2019; claimant pays 80% of defendant’s costs thereafter, including additional claims against Caunton and RPS. Caunton’s costs are paid by defendant up to 5 September 2019 and by claimant thereafter. No indemnity costs awarded. Interim payments ordered for Caunton.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned between parties based on success and conduct; no indemnity costs; interim payments ordered.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay 80% of claimant’s costs up to 5 September 2019.
  • Claimant to pay 80% of defendant’s costs from 6 September 2019, including additional claims against Caunton and RPS.