Breyer Group Plc & Ors v Department of Energy And Climate Change
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE COULSON
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimants sought costs for a three-day hearing on preliminary issues, as previously judged in [2014] EWHC 2257 (QB). Despite succeeding on most points, they were partially unsuccessful on incomplete contracts. The court awarded the claimants 80% of their costs, recognizing their partial loss.
Judgment
The Hon. Mr Justice Coulson:
INTRODUCTION
This short Judgment is concerned only with the costs of the preliminary issues, which were the subject of my Judgment at [2014] EWHC 2257 (QB) . The claimants seek their costs of the three day hearing. The defendant maintains that the costs of the preliminary issues should be reserved to the trial judge.
PRINCIPLES
The general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party: CPR 44.2 (2)(a).
Where liability is heard before quantum, or there is a trial of preliminary issues, the judge can award costs to the successful party, although there may be circumstances in which it is premature to make an order for costs ahead of the findings on an inquiry on damages or on account for profits (see Shepherds Investments v Walters [2007] 6 Costs LR 837).
The successful party after a trial of preliminary issues or a split trial on liability is likely to be awarded his costs “in the absence of special circumstances” (see Weill v Mean Fiddler Holdings Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ. 1058 , paragraph 31, although in that case a decision to reserve costs was upheld by the Court of Appeal).
SUCCESSFUL PARTY?
In my judgment, the claimants were the successful party. They established the existence of possessions under A1P1; they established interference; and they won on the issues of justification and causation/loss. They were described as the successful party by the editors when the judgment was recorded on Lawtel and Westlaw.
They were not, however, entirely successful, and the arguments on which they lost – specifically that relating to incomplete contracts – were not insignificant. On the contrary, my ruling that completed contracts give rise to a claim, but incomplete contracts do not, is likely to reduce substantially the overall value of this claim.
SHOULD THE CLAIMANTS BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR COSTS?
Should the claimants be deprived of their costs because so many matters remain outstanding, to be resolved at the eventual trial? In my view, they should not. There are four reasons for this.
In Ted Baker v Axa Insurance [2012] Costs LR 1023, Eder J said, when allowing a similar application by successful claimants, that “these preliminary issues were extremely discrete and it was always open for the defendants, if they so wished, to concede these particular point.” In my judgment, precisely the same applies in the present case. Instead the defendant fought each point. That