Todd and Others v. Concrete Repairs Ltd [2000] EAT 195_99_0704 (7 April 2000)
The appellants' conduct in the Todd appeal was unreasonable, warranting an order that they pay two thirds of the assessed costs of the respondent, or a fixed sum of £5,000 to avoid assessment.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] EAT 195_99_0704
- Parties
- Appellant: Appellants; Respondent: Respondents
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 07 April 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Costs / Post Appeal
- Outcome
- partly allowed
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Appeal Conduct
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Appellants
Appellant
Respondents
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs / Post Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants should pay the costs of the appeal due to unreasonable conduct
- 2 Appropriate proportion of costs to be paid by the appellants
Ratio Decidendi
The appellants' conduct in the Todd appeal was unreasonable, warranting an order that they pay two thirds of the assessed costs of the respondent, or a fixed sum of £5,000 to avoid assessment.
Court Disposition
partly allowed
Orders
- Appellants to pay two thirds of the assessed costs of the respondent in the Todd appeal or £5,000 as a fixed sum.
- No order for costs in the Taylor appeal (EAT/268/99).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JUDGMENT APPLICATION FOR COSTS © Copyright 2000 APPEARANCES For the Appellants MR PETER GROBEL (of Counsel) Messrs O H Parsons & Partners Solicitors 3rd Floor Sovereign House 212-224 Shaftesbury Avenue London WC2H 8PR For the Respondents MISS INGRID SIMLER (of Counsel) Messrs Masons Solicitors 30 Aylesbury Street London EC1R 0ER MR JUSTICE BURTON : In relation to the Todd case we consider that the conduct of the appeal was unreasonable, either on the basis that it should not have been brought in light of paragraph 19 or that once it had been brought, it should have been discontinued at a relatively early stage. However, we conclude that there was a substantial amount of overlap between the two, that may or may not have been allowed for in the schedule that has been produced today, which will obviously in any event be reconsidered before any question of assessment. But the figure that we conclude is appropriate or the proportion that we think is appropriate is that the Appellants should pay two thirds of the assessed costs of the Respondent in the appeal. The figure that has floated, not surprisingly, into our mind, is the figure of £5,000. It seems to us that it would be sensible, in order to avoid an assessment, if that was the figure that was paid. So far as the Taylor appeal (EAT/268/99) is concerned we make no order for costs. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII