Hollins v Russell

1. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: In Hollins v Russell we take the view, and this applies to our approach to others of these appeals, that in a matter as weighty as this we should not disallow the costs of arguments which failed unless points were unreasonably taken. This was a highly complex case that warranted a full investigation by the Court of Appeal. Accordingly we do not propose to make a discount of costs in relation to costs on an issue basis. We look at the matter as a whole.

2. In Hollins v Russell we consider the claimant should be entitled to his costs throughout and that he should receive £7,500 on account of costs, with the rest of the costs to go to detailed assessment.

3. In Tichband v Hurdman our approach is the same. For the same reasons we consider that the claimant should be entitled to his costs throughout and that he should be entitled to indemnity costs from the last date on which the letter of offer could have been accepted. We are not willing to order as much on account as was requested. We consider a sum of £20,000 on account of costs as reasonable, with the rest to go to detailed assessment.

4. In Dunn v Ward, for the same broad reasons I have given, we consider that the claimant should be entitled to her costs and that there should be an award of £20,000 on account of costs and that the rest should go to detailed assessment.

5. In relation to Pratt v Bull, we take the view that the costs at district judge level should await the final determination of the assessment. We set aside the existing order for costs there. The matter should be decided in due course by the district judge who hears the assessment. We consider that Mrs Pratt should have her costs before the circuit judge and the Court of Appeal from 6 September because we consider that if the offer made at that time had been accepted all the additional costs would have been saved.

6. Worth v McKenna was a case in which the district judge made an order granting the claimant no costs at all. We have directed that the matter go back to the district judge for assessment in accordance with the principles set out in our judgment. We have considered this case very carefully. It is true that on one side the defendant succeeded in relation to disclosure issues. What was at the heart of the matter, however, was the district judge's order that the claimant should receive no costs at all. In those circumstances we consider the appropriate order is no order as to costs throughout. The costs before the district judge should be set aside but those costs should await the result of the assessment. Again, there will be detailed assessment.

7. We received representations from counsel who is not at present before us that we may have made a mistake in paragraphs 127 and 128 of our judgment. We have reconsidered those paragraphs. We are of the clear view we did not make a mistake and so we do not propose to re-write our judgment in that respect. It may be that we would have written it slightly more clearly if the point had been raised earlier, but the judgment stands.