Munkenbeck & Marshall v McAlpine

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1995
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
15 cases
  • Burgess and Others v Stevedoring Services Ltd
    • Bermuda
    • Supreme Court (Bermuda)
    • 11 May 2000
    ...the Defendants De Groote 1991 Civil Jur. No. 148 EMI Records v WallaceUNK [1982] 2 All ER 980 Munkenbeck & Marshall (A Firm) v McAlpineUNK 44 Con LR 30 Rules of the Supreme Court, O. 62, R. 4(1) Application to stay execution of order pending appeal — Stay against costs — Indemnity costs RUL......
  • Nike Real Estate Ltd v De Bruyne
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 23 January 2002
    ...Inv. Trust PLC, Queen”s Bench Division, 1994, unreported, dicta of Millett J. applied. (9) Munkenbeck & Marshall v. McAlpineUNK(1995), 44 Con. L.R. 30; [1995] E.G.C.S. 24, referred to. Civil Procedure-costs-costs as damages-no power to award as damages costs unrecovered under party and part......
  • London Borough of Southwark v Nejad & Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 January 1999
    ...Investment Trust plc ( unreported, 10 December 1993) approved in the Court of Appeal in Munkenbeck & Marshall (A Firm) v McAlpine (1995) 44 Con. L.R. 30 at 33, the discretion to order indemnity costs is not to be circumscribed beyond the requirement that taxation on an indemnity basis must ......
  • Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak and Another (Plaintiffs) Abdul Fattah Sulaiman Khaled Al Bader and Others (Defendants) H. Clarkson & Company Ltd and Others (third Parties)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 21 December 1998
    ...a variety of different circumstances. The court has a very broad discretion in this matter. Indeed, in Munkenbeck & Marshall v. McAlpine 44 Con.L.R. 30, Hollis J. regretted that various courts had attempted to define the circumstances in which indemnity costs might be ordered because in eac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Litigation
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume III - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...Ltd v HGP Greentree Allchurch Evans Ltd [2006] BLR 45 at 49 [27], per HHJ Coulson QC. See also Munkenbeck & Marshall v McAlpine (1995) 44 Con LR 30 (CA); Gotch v Enelco Ltd [2015] EWHC 1802 (TCC ) ; Dixon v Radley House Partnership [2016] EWHC 3485 (QB) at [9], per Stuart-Smith J; Car Giant......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT