Pervez Akhtar v Jordan Boland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Stanley Burnton,Lord Justice Floyd,Lady Justice Gloster |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 943 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B3/2013/2827 |
| Date | 08 July 2014 |
[2014] EWCA Civ 943
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PLATTS
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lady Justice Gloster
Lord Justice Floyd
and
Sir Stanley Burnton
Case No: B3/2013/2827
Robert Weir QC and Justin Valentine (instructed by AA Law) for the Appellant
Andrew Prynne QC and Darren Walsh (instructed by Horwich Farrelly) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 11 June 2014
This is my judgment on the issue as to the costs of the appellant's unsuccessful appeal to this Court against the order of His Honour Judge Platts dismissing his appeal against the order of District Judge Fox refusing to reallocate the claim to the fast track, with the result that it remained in the small claims track. This Court ordered that the issue as to the appellant's liability for the costs of the successful respondent would be decided on the parties' written submissions.
The relevant rules of the CPR are CPR 27.14 and 52.9A. CPR 27(14 provides, so far as relevant:
"(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track.
…
(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party's costs, fees and expenses including those relating to an appeal, except –
It is not suggested that any of the exceptions set out under CPR 27.14(2) in subparagraphs is applicable to this case.
CPR 52.9 A provides:
"(1) In any proceedings in which costs recovery is normally limited or excluded at first instance, an appeal court may make an order that the recoverable costs of an appeal will be limited to the extent which the court specifies.
(2) In making such an order the court will have regard to—
(a) the means of both parties;
(b) all the circumstances of the case; and
(c) the need to facilitate access to justice.
(3) if the appeal raises an issue of principle or practice upon which substantial sums may turn, it may not be appropriate to make an order under paragraph (1)."
The current note in the Supreme Court Practice at paragraph 27.14.1.1 states:
"Rule 27.14 (2) applies the "no costs" rule to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter
...judgments:AIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (The Kriti Palm) [2006] EWCA Civ 1601; [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 667, CAAkhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 943; [2014] CP Rep 41, CAApplegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406; [1971] 2 WLR 541; [1971] 1 All ER 747, CAArcadia Group Brands Ltd v Visa Inc [201......
-
Karen Smith v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
...“this is a prospective costs order seeking a condition on the grant of permission and can thus be distinguished from Akhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 943 where the Court of Appeal (expressing regret at the outcome) held that there could be no costs order in favour of the successful party in......
-
Mr Peter Mills Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP
...correct in seeking to determine whether or not Mr Dammermann had "behaved unreasonably" with respect to his conduct of the appeal, see Akhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 943. This appeal 16 Mr Dammermann was granted permission for a second appeal by Lord Justice Vos (as he then was) partly on ......
-
Parker v Butler
...been cited 14 The researches of counsel have only produced one decision which was not cited and examined by Master Haworth. That was Akhtar v. Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 943 which was discovered by Mr. Fisher after the hearing, and I am grateful to him for his work. That case concerned an appea......
-
Table of Cases
...reference, which tells you what level of court made the decision and in which year. For example, the reference for Akhtar v Boland is [2014] EWCA Civ 943. This indicates that it was decided in 2014 by the Court of Appeal (EWCA means England & Wales Court of Appeal), and that it was a civil ......
-
Costs in Small Claims Cases
...: deciding whether the behaviour has been unreasonable. • Stage 2 : assessing the costs for unreasonable behaviour. 2 Akhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 943. 9.4.2 Stage 1: What is unreasonable behaviour? There are many different ways of behaving unreasonably, and how bad that behaviour has to......