Raymond Bieber & Others v Teathers Ltd ((in Liquidation)) Robert & Rebecca Willer Teathers Ltd ((in Liquidation))
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Norris |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 238 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Claim No: HC09C031059 & HC12F04879 |
| Date | 16 January 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 238 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Rolls Building,
110 Fetter Lane,
London EC4 1NL
Mr Justice Norris
Claim No: HC09C031059 & HC12F04879
and
and
MR M SIMPSON QC and MR C LANGLEY (instructed by Harcus Sinclair) appeared on behalf of the Claimants Bieber & Others.
MR A ONSLOW QC and MR M HARDWICK (instructed by Norton Rose Fulbright) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
MR W McCORMICK QC (instructed by Bird & Lovibond Warners Solicitors) appeared on behalf of Robert and Rebecca Willer.
Although no formal notice of discontinuance has yet been given in relation to the action which concerns the Take 6 claimants, it is clear that they will not be proceeding with their claim. The claims that are going to trial, which have hitherto been managed alongside the Take 6 claim, are Takes 2–5. In these circumstances, the defendants say that the provisions of CPR 38.6 are brought to bear, and they ask for an order that the Take 6 claimants should pay their costs of the Take 6 claim. They do so because CPR 38.6 says:
"Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant."
In deciding whether to make an order otherwise than the presumptive order contained in CPR 38.6, I am of course required to exercise my discretion in the light of the overriding objective, namely the need to deal with cases justly, having regard to the particular factors set out in CPR 1.1. But CPR 38.6 has been the subject of guidance from the Court of Appeal, endorsing the observations of His Honour Judge Waksman QC, sitting in Teesdale v HSBC Bank [2011] EWCA Civ 354, and that guidance must also inform the exercise of the discretion.
That guidance reminds me that (a) there is a presumption that Teathers should recover their costs of the discontinued Take 6 litigation; (b) that the burden lies on the Take 6 claimants to show a good reason for departing from the presumptive rule; (c) that the mere fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial