![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) 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 (Chancery Division) Decisions >> University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking & Dagenham & Ors [2004] EWHC 2908 (Ch) (14 December 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/2908.html Cite as: [2004] EWHC 2908 (Ch), [2005] 3 All ER 416, [2005] 2 Costs LR 287, [2005] 2 WLR 1334 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
Strand, ![]() ![]() |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() HIGHER ![]() |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() PERSONS UNKNOWN OWNING OR OCCUPYING PROPERTY FORMING PART OF THE BECONTREE ESTATE, ![]() ![]() ![]() (NUMBER ![]() |
Defendants |
____________________
London
W1W 5LS) for the Claimant
Mr Christopher Cant (instructed by Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, Beaufort House, 15 St Botolph Street, London
EC3A 7NJ) for the First Defendant
Ms Karen Walden-Smith (instructed by Legal Services Department, London Borough of Redbridge, Town Hall, High Road, Ilford, Essex IG1 1DD) for the Second Defendant
None of the Third Defendants attended and were not represented
Hearing dates: 10th December 2004
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Lightman:
"a plaintiff seeking a declaration that restrictive covenants do not affect his property is expected to pay his own costs. He is also expected to pay the costs of any defendants who enter an appearance down to the point in proceedings at which they have had a full opportunity of considering the matter and deciding whether or not to oppose the application. Any defendant who then decides to continue, and appears unsuccessfully before the judge, does so at his own risk as to his own costs at that stage. Such defendant should not however be ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs."