Fattal & Anor v Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd & Anor (Rev. 1) [2009] EWHC 1674 (Ch) (05 June 2009)

Fattal & Anor v Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd & Anor (Rev. 1) [2009] EWHC 1674 (Ch) (05 June 2009)

The appeal was dismissed because the costs judge had jurisdiction to order interest from the date of judgment, the funding arrangement did not negate the loss to the trusts, and the significant reduction in the claimants' bill justified disallowing the costs of assessment. The discretion under CPR 40.8 and 47.18 was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1674 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: William Simon Fattal; Claimant: Elias Simon Fattal; Defendant: Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd; Defendant: Walbrook International Trust Company Limited (WITCO) and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interest on Costs, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Trust Litigation, Costs Orders, Discretion Under CPR 40.8 and 47.18
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Interest on Costs Detailed Assessment of Costs Trust Litigation Costs Orders Discretion Under CPR 40.8 and 47.18

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Simon Fattal

Claimant

Elias Simon Fattal

Claimant

Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd

Defendant

Walbrook International Trust Company Limited (WITCO) and others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interest on costs should run from the date of the original order or a later date
  2. 2 Whether the costs judge had jurisdiction to order interest to run from a date other than judgment
  3. 3 Whether the claimants should be awarded their costs of the assessment of their costs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the costs judge had jurisdiction to order interest from the date of judgment, the funding arrangement did not negate the loss to the trusts, and the significant reduction in the claimants' bill justified disallowing the costs of assessment. The discretion under CPR 40.8 and 47.18 was properly exercised.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interest on costs to run from 3rd October 2003 as ordered by Master O'Hare
  • No order for the claimants' costs of the assessment of their costs