A3/2006/0748
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWCA Civ 1832
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE TOMLINSON)
 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London, WC2 

Tuesday, 19 December 2006
 
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
LORD JUSTICE HALLETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LONDON BUSES SERVICES LTD
CLAIMANT/APPELLANT
- v -

TRAMTRACK CROYDON LTD
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  (DAR Transcript of 
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No:  020 7404 1400  Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR S MALES QC & MR T RAPHAEL (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR R WILMOT QC & MR S WILKEN (instructed by Ashurst) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE:  For the reasons given in the judgment that I now hand down, this appeal will be dismissed save in one respect, and I will read the order of the court which is that: 1) the appeal is dismissed save as set out in paragraph 2 below; 2) the following passages of the judge’s judgment be set aside: those parts of the judge’s judgment which decide that measures intended to bring about an increase in passenger carrying capacity would involve a change to or a change outside the service parameters set out in section 9 of part 4 of the specification, namely i) paragraph 34 last sentence and ii) the clarification of this issue in the judge’s supplementary judgment given on 17 March 2006; 3) permission for appeal to the House of Lords is refused; and 4) the appellants to pay three-quarters of the respondent’s costs of the appeal including, for the avoidance of doubt, those costs incurred in responding to the appellant’s notice of appeal and first skeleton argument 

2.	The reason for our order for costs is that we regard the appellant’s success as set out in paragraph 2 of this order as a very limited success, the point raised being at this stage hypothetical and not appropriate for final decision. 

3.	That is the order of the court which we have made after consideration of the submissions presented to us. 

Order: Appeal dismissed.