Rollin Clifton Bertrand and 2 others (Respondents) v Anthony Elias (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Rollin Clifton Bertrand and 2 others (Respondents) v Anthony Elias (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

The Board held that, although the general rule is for prescribed costs, in this exceptional case—where the claim was ill-founded, the actual costs were hugely disproportionate to prescribed costs, and the proceedings were of significant complexity and importance—the discretion should be exercised to order assessed costs. The prescribed costs regime should not protect parties who bring ill-founded claims from reimbursing reasonable costs incurred by the defendant.

Parties
1st Respondent: Rollin Clifton Bertrand; 2nd Respondent: Trinidad Cement Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Caribbean Cement Company Ltd; Appellant: Anthony Elias
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs After Discontinuance) / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Privy Council
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Prescribed Costs, Assessed Costs, Discontinuance, Defamation, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Costs Prescribed Costs Assessed Costs Discontinuance Defamation Exercise of Judicial Discretion

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rollin Clifton Bertrand

1st Respondent

Trinidad Cement Ltd

2nd Respondent

Caribbean Cement Company Ltd

3rd Respondent

Anthony Elias

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs After Discontinuance) / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be quantified as prescribed costs or assessed costs after discontinuance of proceedings for defamation where the claim form did not specify a monetary amount and no value was agreed.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to stipulate a value for the claim and ordering assessed costs instead of prescribed costs.
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to exercise discretion after setting aside the trial judge's order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Board held that, although the general rule is for prescribed costs, in this exceptional case—where the claim was ill-founded, the actual costs were hugely disproportionate to prescribed costs, and the proceedings were of significant complexity and importance—the discretion should be exercised to order assessed costs. The prescribed costs regime should not protect parties who bring ill-founded claims from reimbursing reasonable costs incurred by the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the trial judge reinstated: claimants to pay the defendant's costs to be assessed by the Master in Chambers.