Palliser Ltd v (1) Fate Ltd ((in Liquidation)) (2) The National Insurance and Guarantee Corporation Ltd (3) UK Insurance Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Andrew Burrows QC |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 389 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ16X03277 |
| Date | 16 January 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 389 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Andrew BurrowsQC
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: HQ16X03277
George Spalton (instructed by Kennedys Law LLP) for the Claimant
Carl Troman (instructed by Plexus Law) for the Defendants
JUDGMENT ON COSTS
Earlier this afternoon, I handed down judgment in this case: see [2019] EWHC 43 (QB). In that judgment I decided that the claimant, Palliser Limited, succeeded in its claim for $8,500 refurbishment costs inclusive of interest.
It was agreed between the parties prior to the trial that the relevant defendant was the third defendant (UK Insurance Ltd). I was told this afternoon, and this is not in dispute between the parties, that there was a judicial order under statute whereby the third defendant would incur and take over the liability of the second defendant (The National Insurance and Guarantee Corp Ltd).
So it is not in issue between the parties, and was not in issue between the parties prior to the commencement of the trial, that the third defendant alone is the relevant defendant. It follows, and Mr Spalton ultimately agreed to this, that there can be no possible liability of the second defendant so that the formal order must be made that the claim against the second defendant is dismissed.
In terms of costs, it seems to me, and I decide, that the second defendant must, therefore, be regarded as the successful party and is entitled to recover its costs from the claimant on the standard basis. I will come back later to that being the appropriate basis. I therefore order that costs shall be paid on the standard basis by the claimant to the second defendant.
Mr Spalton wanted to ensure that there should be no duplication of costs in a situation where the second defendant was represented by the same solicitors and the same counsel as the third defendant. That is reflected in the order I am making and no doubt the costs judge on a detailed assessment will...
To continue reading
Request your trial