The London Borough of Tower Hamlets v The London Borough of Bromley (in its capacity as successor to the London Residuary Body)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Norris |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2271 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC-2014000132 |
| Date | 30 July 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 2271 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
EC4A 1NL
Mr Justice Norris
Case No: HC-2014000132
Nigel Giffin QC and Christopher Knight (instructed by The Legal Services Department of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets) for the Claimant
Timothy Straker QC and Dilpreet Dhanoa (instructed by Trowers & Hamlins LLP) for the Defendant
Written submissions: 8 July 201
APPROVED JUDGMENT
SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS
I must now deal with matters consequential upon the main judgment.
Counsel for Tower Hamlets submit that the Claimant was wholly successful in the litigation, that the precise ground upon which it had succeeded had first been raised in correspondence in December 2013 (seven months before the commencement of proceedings) but had been resisted throughout, that its claim to have acquired title by operation of the Limitation Act had been placed in the forefront of its skeleton argument as the simplest means of determining the claim, and that consideration of the conversion claim necessarily involved an enquiry whether Bromley was the party in whom any cause of action was vested and so against whom the declaration as to title must be sought. They submit that a simple order that costs should follow the event (in application of the general rule under CPR 44.2(2)) is appropriate.
Counsel for Bromley submit that although the claim to acquire title by operation of the Limitation Act has succeeded, Tower Hamlets advanced (and lost) a claim to be the paper title owner in which they pursued legal points bearing on the history of the public bodies involved, consideration of which took up the bulk of the judgment. They submit that a costs order might well be made in favour of Bromley: but that the correct order is that Tower Hamlets should recover only 20% of its costs.
The general rule that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. A consideration of all the circumstances may lead the Court to depart from that general rule.
Amongst the circumstances to be considered is whether a party has succeeded on part of its case even if it has not been wholly successful. Tower Hamlets succeeded on its claim to have acquired title by operation of the Limitation Act even though it was not wholly successful, because it did not succeed on its paper title claim. Bromley succeeded on part of its case, establishing paper title, though this did not avail it because it had lost the right to assert that title.
It is true that Tower Hamlets could from the outset have conceded Bromley's paper title and simply fought the case on the limitation claim. But to seek declaratory relief on the basis of a concession would not have been wise: and an examination of who had the right of action to recover possession of the sculpture was an integral part of the limitation claim. So going through the history of the public bodies was not an irrelevant frolic. It was, of course, an integral part of Bromley's unsuccessful opposition to the claim. The material of this type which Tower Hamlets itself deployed, and the material which it deployed in answer to Bromley's stated position as to ownership (a distinction that is not easy to make) was in my view relevant to the limitation claim, and its introduction and consideration may fairly be regarded as part of the successful claim. Bromley's criticism is more correctly confined to the time taken in written and oral argument...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C Ltd v D
...applies unless there is a good reason to depart from it (see e.g. London Borough of Tower Hamlets v The London Borough of Bromley [2015] EWHC 2271 (Ch) § 9 per Norris J: “One should depart from the general rule only where the needs of justice and the circumstances of the particular case re......
-
RJ v HB
...justice and the circumstances of the particular case require, and a measure of caution is required”, per Norris J, London Borough of Tower Hamlets v London Borough of Bromley [2015] EWHC 2271 (Ch) at 10 The first question, therefore, is: who won? An identification of either the claimants o......
-
BAV-TMW-Globaler-Immobilien-Spezialfonds
...modified but such cases must be approached with caution (see Norris J in London Borough of Tower Hamlets v London Borough of Bromley [2015] EWHC 2271 (Ch) at [9]). Applications for costs [9] The basis of BTI's application for an order that HMRC pay its costs is that it was successful in its......
-
Roman Pipia v BGEO Group Ltd (formerly known as BGEO Group Plc)
... ... Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL ... Mr Justice Andrew Baker ... the relevant event: see, e.g., London Borough of Tower Hamlets v London Borough of Bromley ... ...