Magical Marking Ltd & Anor v Ware & Kay LLP & Anor [2013] EWHC 636 (Ch) (20 March 2013)

Magical Marking Ltd & Anor v Ware & Kay LLP & Anor [2013] EWHC 636 (Ch) (20 March 2013)

Ware & Kay were the successful party as the main thrust of the claim failed, the sum recovered was trivial, and the successful claim was only introduced at the last minute. Mrs Phillis is to pay 85% of Ware & Kay's costs. Interest on damages is awarded from the midpoint between the date payment became due and the date of amendment. Permission to appeal is refused to both parties.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 636 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Magical Marking Limited; Claimant: Mrs Jean Phillis; Defendant: Ware & Kay LLP; Defendant: Ware & Kay (A Firm); Defendant: William Tunnah; Defendant: Graham Kay; Defendant: Jonathan Leach; Defendant: Peter Kay; Defendant: Michael Peach; Defendant: William Donald Coverdale; Defendant: Francina Whelan; Defendant: Roger Boreham; Defendant: David Liddell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Post Trial Judgment on Costs, Interest, and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Claimant to pay 85% of defendants' costs; interest on damages awarded from midpoint date; permission to appeal refused to both parties.
Legal Topics
Costs, Interest on Damages, Permission to Appeal, Solicitor's Duty of Care
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Interest on Damages Permission to Appeal Solicitor's Duty of Care

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Magical Marking Limited

Claimant

Mrs Jean Phillis

Claimant

Ware & Kay LLP

Defendant

Ware & Kay (A Firm)

Defendant

William Tunnah

Defendant

Graham Kay

Defendant

Jonathan Leach

Defendant

Peter Kay

Defendant

Michael Peach

Defendant

William Donald Coverdale

Defendant

Francina Whelan

Defendant

Roger Boreham

Defendant

David Liddell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / Post Trial Judgment on Costs, Interest, and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for the purpose of costs?
  2. 2 Is the claimant entitled to interest on damages, and from what date?
  3. 3 Should permission to appeal be granted to either party?

Ratio Decidendi

Ware & Kay were the successful party as the main thrust of the claim failed, the sum recovered was trivial, and the successful claim was only introduced at the last minute. Mrs Phillis is to pay 85% of Ware & Kay's costs. Interest on damages is awarded from the midpoint between the date payment became due and the date of amendment. Permission to appeal is refused to both parties.

Court Disposition

Claimant to pay 85% of defendants' costs; interest on damages awarded from midpoint date; permission to appeal refused to both parties.

Orders

  • Mrs Phillis to pay 85% of Ware & Kay's costs, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.
  • Interest on £28,000 damages at 1.5% over base rate from midpoint between April 2004 and last day of trial.