[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Crestfort Ltd & Ors v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 2480 (Ch) (11 November 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/2480.html Cite as: [2005] EWHC 2480 (Ch) |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
CRESTFORT LIMITED HALEPOINT LIMITED YORKSTREAM PROPERTIES LIMITED |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
TESCO STORES LIMITED (2) MAGSPEED LIMITED |
Defendant/Part 20 Claimant Defendant |
____________________
Mr Stephen Jourdan (instructed by Dewar Hogan, 4 Creed Court, 5 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7AA) for the First Defendant/Part 20 Claimant)
Miss Elizabeth Fitzgerald (instructed by Pickworths, 6 Victoria Street, St Albans, Hertfordshire AL1 3JB) for the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 7th November 2005
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Lightman:
INTRODUCTION
FACTS
ISSUES
(a) Deferment of Decision
(b) Incidence of Costs
i) the Claimants were successful on their claim and the Defendants' counterclaim was dismissed. The general rule applicable is that costs should follow the event. The issue arises whether there is any reason to depart from the general rule;ii) there were issues in the action on which the Claimants failed. It is not suggested that the Claimants acted wrongly or unreasonably in raising them, but the fact that they failed requires consideration whether justice requires "some other order" and in particular a reduction of the Claimants' award from 100% to a lesser proportion of their costs. The Defendants suggest a reduction to 40%;
iii) I have no doubt that taking into consideration all the material circumstances there ought to be no reduction. Those circumstances include: (1) the reality that the Claimants entirely succeeded and the issues on which the Claimants failed can fairly be termed "subsidiary"; (2) the conduct of the Defendants to which I have already referred; (3) the offers made by the Claimants; (a) on the 14th September 2004 to accept £100,000 damages in lieu of an injunction; and (b) on the 29th March 2005 to accept £64,000; and (4) the rejection by the Defendants of both offers. In justice the Claimants ought to receive an order for all their costs.
(c) Interest
(d) Indemnity Costs
PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT