Progress Contractors Ltd v Caton and Anr
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Pitchford |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 256 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2012/2191 |
| Date | 12 February 2013 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 256
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HASTINGS COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HOLLIS)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Pitchford
Case No: A2/2012/2191
Peter and Ian Grant appeared in person for the Appellant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
Following mediation between the applicant, a firm of builders, and the respondents, building owners, on 19 July 2012 HHJ Hollis, sitting at Hastings County Court, gave judgment for the applicant in the sum of £27,888.19, together with interest at the rate of 6.5 per cent in the sum of £2,114.85, making a total of £30,003.04.
The action began as a claim by the applicant for sums due under a building contract. That claim was resisted by the respondents on the basis that the work was carried out too slowly, that in some respects it was defective and that they had incurred substantial sums in employing alternative builders to complete the work.
The parties had agreed, upon accepting mediation, that they would accept the opinion of an independent surveyor engaged for the purpose of valuing the work done against the building contract and the value of the respondent's counterclaim. Judgment in the sum to which I have just referred was therefore in a sense a formality. As the judge put it:
"The parties agreed to the appointment of Mr Gainsbury and he has prepared a full and detailed report on the work, dealing with the matters outstanding, and he has come to a very clear conclusion that there is the sum of £27,888.19, excluding interest, due to Progress after taking into account the Catons' counterclaim. This is, of course, somewhat less than the amount being claimed, but is significantly more than the position of the defence, which was that there was nothing to pay and indeed that they were owed some £18,000 plus."
That left the issue of costs. Although not explicit in the judgment, it is clear from the words to which I have just made reference that the claim succeeded, as did the counterclaim to a certain extent. The judge awarded the applicant the sum of £1,870, comprising court fees of £580, litigant-in-person costs of £1,090 and solicitors' costs of £200. That figure was added to the claim, making a total in respect of judgment of £31,873.0It has been submitted by Mr Ian Grant, on behalf of the applicant, that it was unusual for the judge to make a summary assessment of costs. The true position is that it is normal for a court to make a summary assessment of costs when it is in a position to do so, the object being to save the costs of a prolonged and detailed assessment.
The judge noted that the applicant had claimed very considerably more in solicitors' costs and remarked that those solicitors had only been engaged for quite a short time and the judge had not been provided with receipted invoices from those solicitors. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the judge's costs order.
On 1 November 2011 the applicant posted to the court and obtained a Post Office receipt for a statement of costs together with a number of invoices including invoices from a firm of solicitors called Menneer Shuttleworth. They comprised invoices numbered 13717, 13821, 14150, 14431, 14843 and 15148. They were dated between 14 February 2011 in respect of the first and 7 September 2011 in respect of the last. The invoices claimed that professional charges had been incurred in connection with reviewing documentation, advising and preparing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-12-09, DA/01101/2014
...of State but the judgment of Parliament”, and [9] of Velasquez Taylor, noted the emphasis given to this in SS (Nigeria) v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 256.In LC China v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 1310 the Court of Appeal said at para 24 “… The starting point for any such assessment is the recognition tha......
-
Deissy Liliana Velasquez Taylor v Secretary of State for The Home Department
...the judgment of Parliament", (a point emphasised in the subsequent case of SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 256; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 998). It also recognised that the public interest in deportation encompassed the need for deterrence, the promotion of p......