Corbin v Dorynek and Anor [2022] JRC 085 (08 April 2022)

Corbin v Dorynek and Anor [2022] JRC 085 (08 April 2022)

Although Mr Dorynek's denial of liability was unreasonable given his criminal conviction, the presence of two defendants and the necessity of apportionment meant most costs would have been incurred regardless. Therefore, indemnity costs were not justified; standard basis applies. Costs are apportioned 60% to Mr Dorynek and 40% to Mr Flath for Mr Corbin's claim. Mr Flath is entitled to 60% of his costs against Mr Dorynek, but only for costs solely referable to his claim. No order as to costs for the amendment application or the costs applications themselves.

Citation
[2022] JRC 085
Parties
Plaintiff: Giles Robert Piers Corbin; First Defendant: Michal Bartolomiej Dorynek; Second Defendant: Tyson Werner Hermann Flath; Plaintiff (2019/178): Tyson Werner Hermann Flath; Defendant (2019/178): Michal Bartolomiej Dorynek
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
08 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment Following Personal Injury Trial / Post Judgment, Determination of Costs
Outcome
Costs apportioned and awarded as specified; no indemnity costs; specific orders on applications.
Legal Topics
Costs, Apportionment of Liability, Standard Vs Indemnity Basis, Contributory Negligence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Apportionment of Liability Standard Vs Indemnity Basis Contributory Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giles Robert Piers Corbin

Plaintiff

Michal Bartolomiej Dorynek

First Defendant

Tyson Werner Hermann Flath

Second Defendant

Tyson Werner Hermann Flath

Plaintiff (2019/178)

Michal Bartolomiej Dorynek

Defendant (2019/178)

Procedural Posture

Costs Judgment Following Personal Injury Trial / Post Judgment, Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity or standard basis against Mr Dorynek
  2. 2 Apportionment of costs between defendants
  3. 3 Entitlement of Mr Flath to costs against Mr Dorynek

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mr Dorynek's denial of liability was unreasonable given his criminal conviction, the presence of two defendants and the necessity of apportionment meant most costs would have been incurred regardless. Therefore, indemnity costs were not justified; standard basis applies. Costs are apportioned 60% to Mr Dorynek and 40% to Mr Flath for Mr Corbin's claim. Mr Flath is entitled to 60% of his costs against Mr Dorynek, but only for costs solely referable to his claim. No order as to costs for the amendment application or the costs applications themselves.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned and awarded as specified; no indemnity costs; specific orders on applications.

Orders

  • Mr Dorynek to pay 60% of Mr Corbin's costs on the standard basis.
  • Mr Flath to pay 40% of Mr Corbin's costs on the standard basis.