![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Heath & Hampstead Society, R (on the application of) v Vlachos & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 193 (19 March 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/193.html Cite as: [2008] EWCA Civ 193 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION,
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
CO/1454/2006
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division
LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY
and
LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH
____________________
| The Queen on the Application of Heath & Hampstead Society |
Respondent |
|
| - and - |
||
| Messrs Alex and Thalis Vlachos |
First and Second Appellants |
|
| - and - |
||
| London Borough of Camden |
Third Appellant |
____________________
Peter Harrison QC (instructed by London Borough of Camden Legal Services) for the Third Appellant
Anthony Porten QC (instructed by Messrs Hunt & Lisners) for the Respondent
Hearing date: Tuesday 26th February, 2008
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Addendum to judgment of 19th March, 2008, on Costs
i) The Respondents costs of the appeal will be paid by the Appellants, divided equally between them.ii) There will be detailed assessment in default of agreement.
iii) There will be an interim payment of £17,000 divided as under (i).
i) There is no dispute that the Respondents should recover their costs, having succeeded on the appeal. The only issue of substance is as to the division between the appellants. In particular, Camden has argued that its status was in effect as no more than that of an interested party. We do not feel it appropriate to differentiate between the two Appellants. Camden chose to appear. In the absence of any indication from the court or the other parties that their help was required on any specific matters; there was no need for them to do so. Having joined in the appeal they should bear the ordinary consequences. The fact that they bore the costs below is not, in our view, relevant to the allocation of costs of the appeal.ii) We note the Society's suggestion that each Appellant should be jointly liable for the whole of the costs. However, we have no reason to think that either party is not able to bear the financial liability. We think it will be simpler and more likely to encourage agreement if the responsibility of each party is separately defined. In view of the size of the costs claim and the material disputes over certain aspects, we do not feel able to make a summary assessment without risk of injustice. The only alternative, therefore, appears to be a detailed assessment, although we would urge the parties to seek agreement if at all possible. Without prejudice to the decision of the Costs Judge, it seems to us that the Respondents should not be required to pay for the additional Counsel's Opinion sought by the Society, nor for any additional costs resulting from Mr Altaras' unfortunate illness.
iii) There seems to be no objection to the size of the interim payment sought, and again we see no reason why it should not be borne equally by both Appellants. Finally we note the Society's suggestion that there should be a special provision for interest on monies already expended. However, we see no reason in this case for a departure from the normal form of order in this respect.