On 11 May 2008 00:00:44 GMT, "The Todal" wrote:
>
> wrote in message
>news:657c24tu0p409tlr5ms55vesdroj8kd679@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:39:30 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
>>>news:fL-dnf6ycpy4ibvVnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@plusnet...
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> news:o33c24lhi78ru7fj7oifc63bu3vf847vr2@4ax.com...
>>>>>I get income support, so I pay no court fees. If a small claims
>>>>> decision goes against me and I wish to appeal, how does it work? Do I
>>>>> risk paying the other side's solicitors costs? The other side is
>>>>> pretty bloody minded and determined not to pay up even though the sum
>>>>> in question is only around £ 500 and he is employing solicitors who
>>>>> must be costing him a lot of money.
>>>>
>>>> This would be a good place to start.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/claims/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> Unless your claim is frivolous or you make a very ill founded claim you
>>>> will not have to pay costs. You do have to pay the normal court fee but
>>>> if
>>>> you win this will form part of the amount awarded.
>>>
>>>PS. I am assuming you have not actually had a decision yet. If you have
>>>and
>>>wish to appeal I would suggest you don't as the costs will be very high.
>>
>> I have not had a decision yet. I am looking at the theoretical
>> possibility of it going against me, and then appealing the decision.
>> Am I right that I would pay the other side's costs?
>
>Not necessarily. Only if your appeal was clearly without merit.
>
>Ali v Smith
>The claimant (C) sought costs from the defendant (S) on the basis of the
>newly amended CPR Part 27 relating to costs of appeals from the small claims
>track. S appealed against a decision that she had collided with a vehicle
>driven by C causing damage to C's vehicle. Permission to appeal had been
>granted on the papers prior to the hearing. S had been assisted by a
>litigation friend at the appeal. Having heard submissions on behalf of S the
>appeal was dismissed and C made an application for costs. C submitted that S
>should pay the costs of the appeal as she had acted unreasonably in bringing
>the appeal, which had a poor prospect of success and was not supported by
>her insurance company.
>Held: Costs determined. For the court to award costs in relation to an
>appeal from the small claims track, the party seeking costs would have to
>prove that the other party had behaved unreasonably. In the instant case,
>the merits of the appeal were very poor and were based partly on new
>evidence that could not be adduced at an appeal and upon findings of fact
>where the district judge had preferred C's evidence. The appeal was an
>attempt to have a retrial rather than to point out errors of law or where
>the judgment was wrong. The original order was for GBP 200 plus costs of GBP
>240 and bringing the appeal was wholly disproportionate to the value of the
>claim. C's costs following the appeal were likely to be in the region of GBP
>1500, more than three times the sum originally awarded, but C was only
>seeking costs of GBP 500. Costs of GBP 500 were ordered to be paid by S to
>C.
>Court: (CC (Brentford)) County Court (Brentford)
>Judge: Judge Edwards
>Judgment date: October 6, 2006
>
>
Thanks for your response. |