Magical Marking Ltd & Anor v Ware & Kay LLP & Anor

Magical Marking Ltd & Anor v Ware & Kay LLP & Anor

Ware & Kay are the successful party for costs purposes because the main claim failed, only a trivial sum was awarded, and the successful claim was introduced as a late amendment. Mrs Phillis is to pay 85% of Ware & Kay's costs. Interest on damages is awarded from the midpoint between the settlement date and the amendment date due to delay. Permission to appeal is refused to both parties as no real prospect of success exists.

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
Civil / Post Trial Judgment on Costs, Interest, and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Judgment for claimants in the sum of £28,000 plus interest; costs awarded to defendants at 85%; permission to appeal refused to both parties.
Legal Topics
Costs, Interest, Permission to Appeal, Negligence, Late Amendment, Successful Party Determination
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Costs Interest Permission to Appeal Negligence Late Amendment Successful Party Determination

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

Civil / Post Trial Judgment on Costs, Interest, and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for costs purposes?
  2. 2 Should interest be awarded on damages, and from what date?
  3. 3 Should permission to appeal be granted to either party?

Ratio Decidendi

Ware & Kay are the successful party for costs purposes because the main claim failed, only a trivial sum was awarded, and the successful claim was introduced as a late amendment. Mrs Phillis is to pay 85% of Ware & Kay's costs. Interest on damages is awarded from the midpoint between the settlement date and the amendment date due to delay. Permission to appeal is refused to both parties as no real prospect of success exists.

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimants in the sum of £28,000 plus interest; costs awarded to defendants at 85%; 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.
  • Interest on £28,000 damages at 1.5% over base from midpoint between April 2004 and last day of trial.