Mr Colin Hall v Gerald Harris and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Kitchin |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWCA Civ 840 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 27 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2011/1244 |
[2012] EWCA Civ 840
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE WORCESTER COUNTY COURT
His Honour Judge Pearce-Higgins QC
7WR00149/7WR00150/WR02352
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Maurice Kay (Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Lord Justice Richards
and
Lord Justice Kitchin
Case No: B2/2011/1244
Mr Hall (in person)
John Randall QC and Giles Harrison-Hall (instructed by Stallard March & Edwards) for the Respondents Mr & Mrs Harris (and instructed by Masefields Solicitors) for the Respondent Mrs Shirley Moore
This is the judgment of the Court in relation to the outstanding matters following our main judgment [2012] EWCA Civ 671. They are:
i) the substantive form of order;
ii) costs.
We would say at the outset that we have had the benefit of further written submissions from the appellant, Mr Hall, and from counsel on behalf of the respondents, Mr and Mrs Harris and Mrs Moore, to which we have given careful consideration.
The substantive form of order
Counsel for the respondents have proposed an order which reflects our judgment. Specifically their draft order records that Mr Hall's appeal has been allowed to the extent of substituting the revised declarations set forth at paragraphs [40], [46] and [52] of our judgment for those made by His Honour Judge Pearce-Higgins QC in his order of 4 April 2011 as amended on 22 June 2011 and 2 March 2012. It also records that the cross-appeal by Mr and Mrs Harris has been dismissed.
Mr Hall, on the other hand, has proposed an order which bears little or no relation to our judgment and, indeed, includes a series of orders and declarations in relation to matters which were not raised at the hearing of the appeal by Mr Hall or counsel then appearing on his behalf and in relation to which we have made no findings.
We have no doubt that the appropriate order to make is that which is proposed by counsel for the respondents. This order accurately reflects the issues raised on the appeal and our findings in relation to them. It is now too late for Mr Hall to seek to re-argue points in relation to which we have expressed our conclusions and to take new points which were not the subject of the appeal and which were not developed before us either in writing or in oral submissions.
Costs
Counsel for the respondents invite us to order that the respondents should have all their costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal, and that the costs order made by the judge should stand.
Mr Hall counters that each party should be responsible for his or her costs from January 2007, the date proceedings commenced.
The general principles which must guide the court in exercising its discretion as to costs are set forth in CPR Rule 44.3. So far as relevant to this case, we particularly have in mind the following.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial