[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 >> Personal Management Solutions Ltd & Anor v GEE 7 Group Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 3860 (Ch) (10 December 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3860.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 3860 (Ch)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

		Rolls Building 7 Rolls Buildings Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL
		10th December 2015

Judgment for costs
1. MR JUSTICE MORGAN: I am asked to make orders for costs and then do a summary assessment of those costs. As I explained in the judgment I have give, the appellants have failed in their appeal against the order of the deputy master and the respondents have failed to obtain permission to bring their cross appeal against that order.
2. I take the view that costs should follow the event so that the appellants should pay the respondents' costs of the appellants' unsuccessful appeal and the respondents should pay the appellants' costs of the respondents' unsuccessful application for permission to appeal.
3. The parties agree that the costs should be assessed summarily at this hearing and not sent for a detailed assessment. I have been given detailed statements or schedules of costs. I will start with the respondents' schedule. That totals £23,856-odd including VAT, which I am told should be included.
4. Ignoring the fact that the respondents have failed on their cross-appeal with the consequences as I have referred to, having regard to costs which are reasonable and proportionate to what was involved in this case, it seems to me that the over all reasonable and proportionate figure for dealing with everything should be £20,000. I need to take from the £20,000 a part of it which related to the cross appeal and I then need to set off against the respondents' costs an appropriate figure to give to the appellants in relation to the fact that they succeeded in resisting the cross-appeal.
5. Counsel have addressed me as to the make up of the figures and have suggested various ways of identifying the separate costs for both sides of the cross-appeal. I do not think this is a case where a mathematical approach or a scientific approach gives a better answer. It seems to me that I should take a broad view and I should say that 10 percent of the respondents' costs are to be attributed to the unsuccessful cross-appeal.
6. So, of the £20,000 I have first mentioned, I will take off £2,000 leaving £18,000, as regards the respondents' costs of defending the appeal. I then have to decide what sum to give the appellants by way of a set off against the figure of £18,000. I do not think I can do better than take the same figure of £2,000. I will take that from the £18,000 by way of set off of the appellants' entitlement. The net balance and the figure which is to be paid by the appellants to the respondents will therefore be £16,000. That is the result of the orders and the assessment.