![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions >> Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2017] EWHC 2299 (TCC) (26 July 2017) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2017/2299.html Cite as: [2017] EWHC 2299 (TCC) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY & CONSTRUCTION COURT
B e f o r e :
B E T W E E N :
____________________
IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
MERIT MERRELL TECHNOLOGY LTD |
Defendant |
____________________
MR J MORT QC (instructed by Mills & Co) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE FRASER:
"It is in general a salutary principle that those who lose discrete aspects of complex litigation should pay for the discrete applications or hearings which they lose, and should do so when they lose them rather than leaving the costs to be swept up at trial."
I should say that Nugee J's case relates to success on a preliminary issue whereas this case is rather different in that it was a split trial of liability and quantum. However, that is what Mr Mort relies on. He also seeks indemnity costs against ICI.
"In exercising that discretion, the overriding objective is of the greatest importance. Applications always involve the court striking a balance between injustice to the applicant if the amendment is refused, and injustice to the opposing party and other litigants in general, if the amendment is permitted."
Transcribed by Opus 2 International Ltd. (Incorporating Beverley F. Nunnery & Co.) Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 civil@opus2.digital __________ This transcript has been approved by the Judge |