Franklin v Maddison & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE DAVIS
- LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case revolves around Mr. Franklin's appeal against a costs order requiring him to pay indemnity costs to Mr. Hunt after losing his claim. The initial judgment was made by Judge Hampton, and Franklin's appeal focused on whether the judge was justified in awarding indemnity costs and whether additional vehicles should have been considered in his claims. Ultimately, the appellate court, led by Davis LJ and Tomlinson LJ, dismissed the appeal, upholding the judge's discretion in awarding indemnity costs for what was deemed a meritless claim.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE DAVIS This is an appeal by Mr Franklin against the costs order made at the conclusion of a trial by HHJ Hampton sitting in the Leicester County Court, her decision being given on 31 August 2012. Leave was refused on all the points sought to be raised on an application for permission to appeal by Leveson LJ.
Permission to appeal was granted subsequently after an oral hearing by Elias LJ, but permission was limited to one particular point. That point relates to the question of costs and, in particular, whether the judge was justified in ordering Mr Franklin to pay the costs of the second Defendant, Mr Hunt, on an indemnity basis, Mr Franklin having failed in his claim against Mr Hunt. Although Mr Franklin, as I have said, had a number of other grounds, those are no longer open to him to pursue.
The background, very shortly stated for present purposes, is rather unusual. In October 2001, the local police force conducted investigations into the disappearance of two men. It was suspected that they had been murdered. At the time, Mr Franklin ran two auto trading businesses from two sites. This ostensibly involved buying vehicles for scrap and spare parts, but, in fact, at least so it was alleged, in part repairing them and then re-registering them for use on the road.
Mr Franklin apparently left the United Kingdom in around October 2001. The police searched his premises, one of which had been, in the interim, subject to an arson attack. The police recovered a transit van and certain other vehicles in the course of their investigations. In due course, some of the vehicles were released to certain individuals claiming ownership. These included at least two Vauxhall Corsas and an Audi which the second Defendant, that is to say Mr Hunt, had claimed were his. He had produced the keys for them.
At the outset of the trial, there was some dispute as to precisely the number of vehicles in respect of which Mr Franklin was making allegations and claims against Mr Hunt. The judge took the view that on the papers he was raising a claim in respect of, at most, three cars; and perhaps only one of the Corsas and an Audi.
Mr Franklin sought to persuade the judge that, in fact, as far as Mr Hunt was concerned, six cars were involved. Indeed, he has today referred us to a pre-action protocol letter and other documents which might suggest that was indeed his claim. However, the judge took the view that that had not been properly particularised in