[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 >> Taylor v High Sean Blaquiere [2002] EWCA Civ 1747 (14 November 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1747.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1747

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER HAMLIN)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Thursday, 14th November 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS: For the reasons given in the judgment of Tuckey and Longmore LJJ and my self, this appeal is dismissed. Having handed down this judgment, the parties agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. However they could not agree the order as to costs nor whether permission should be given to appeal to the House of Lords. To avoid further expense, they provided written submissions and asked the court to decide those issues without further attendance. We agreed to that course and this is the judgment of the court upon those issues.

Costs

2. The appellant drew attention to the fact that two issues had arisen on the appeal and that they had succeeded on one of them. Relying on R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd CA unreported 6th July 1998, he submitted that the order for costs should reflect his success. Taking into account the time spent, he submits that the correct order should be that the appellant pay 70% of the respondent's costs subject to a detailed assessment. Further the order made by the judge should be varied so that the appellant should pay 90% of the respondent's costs.
3. The respondent submits that costs should follow the event and therefore the order for costs before the judge should stand and that he should receive all his costs of the appeal. He accepts that any costs order should be subject to a detailed assessment.
4. Despite our conclusion that section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act did not provide a reason to decide the appeal in the respondent's favour, and that under the CPR a court is encouraged to consider making orders for costs that reflect success on issues, we conclude that the costs should follow the event in this court. The appeal involved only one issue argued by the respondent on two legal bases.
5. As to the costs before the judge, we believe that the order should stand as it still reflects the result.
6. We therefore order that the appeal be dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellant. There will be a detailed assessment.
7. Although this case raised an issue of law that is of importance, we refuse permission to appeal as we believe the House of Lords should decide whether an appeal is appropriate.