Blindley Heath Investments Ltd v. Bass

Reference

[2016] 4 Costs L.O. 627; [2016] EWCA Civ 548

Date

10 Jun 2016

Court

Court of Appeal EWCA Civ

Facts

This involved multiple appeals and cross-appeals in respect of the main appeal, reported as [2015] EWCA Civ 1023.  Robin’s client, the successful claimant in the court below and the successful respondent in the main appeal, was cross-appealing against the decision of the first instance Judge to award him only part of his costs of the claim.  The Judge below had been particularly influenced by the fact that the claim had been brought not only against the shareholders who had unsuccessfully opposed the claim but also against the shareholders who had sold their shares to the claimant and who succeeded in demonstrating that they were not in breach of warranty.  The claimant argued that a Bullock order was appropriate, and there should be no discount to the costs recoverable, on the basis that he had to sue both sets of shareholders in the alternative.
Held, allowing the claimant’s cross-appeal on costs, a Bullock order without a discount was appropriate and would be substituted for the order made by the Judge.  The Judge below had clearly erred in the exercise of her discretion.

Comment

Contributors

Robin Hollington QC