Dillard v F&C Commercial Property Holdings Ltd
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD
Areas of Law
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, Justice Akenhead determined costs following a successful appeal by Mr. Dillard. F&C's arguments for reducing their costs liability due to alleged misconduct by Mr. Dillard were dismissed. F&C was ordered to pay £21,655 for the appeal and the strike-out application, emphasizing the importance of proportional and necessary litigation costs.
JUDGMENT
Mr Justice Akenhead:
The Costs
Having handed down judgment in this matter on 16 April 2014, in favour of Mr Dillard, the Appellant, I left over costs to be the subject matter of written representations. I have received those from Counsel for which I am grateful.
It is accepted that Mr Dillard should have the costs of the appeal but Mr de Waal QC argues that they should be reduced by reason of his conduct or they should be reserved to the conclusion of the case. There has been nothing reprehensible or wrong in connection with the conduct either of Mr Dillard or of those advising him in connection with the appeal. F&C fought the appeal and has lost and should therefore in principle pay the costs of and occasioned by the appeal.
Similar considerations apply to the hearing below on the application by F&C to strike out this part of Mr Dillard’s “appeal”. It was an application which, as this appeal has demonstrated, need not have been made and ultimately has been shown to be unjustified.
Mr de Waal QC prays in aid complaints to the effect that Mr Dillard has not engaged with F&C with a view to resolving the underlying dispute between them. Thus, it is said that on 19 April 2013 F&C’s solicitors, who had no wish to litigate, would go along with the party wall award surveyors deal with the dispute and issue another award and that, although belatedly details of the further loss and damage were provided shortly before the hearing before HHJ Bailey, there was said to be a lack of response or engagement to enable F&F to inspect Mr Dillard’s property.
In my judgment, it was not unreasonable of Mr Dillard not to accept the suggestion that the party wall surveyors get involved again; this is because my judgment demonstrates that they have no jurisdiction to do so.
What should be focussed on is simply the costs of and occasioned by the appeal and by the strike-out application. If there has been poor conduct in terms of engagement by Mr Dillard with suggestions as to alternative dispute resolution or other alleged lack of cooperation, that legitimately goes to a consideration of costs overall. It does not enable or justify F&C embarking with impunity on a tactical foray, albeit reasonably arguable, which has proved to be unsuccessful.
It follows that F&C should pay on a standard basis the costs of and occasioned both by this appeal and the strike-out application before HHJ Bailey. There is no obvious justification to postpone assessment or not to make a s