"The Todal" wrote:
>
>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
>
So, (C) wanted £200 from (S) and went to court to get it.
That cost (S) 200 + 240 + 500 = £940
While (C) won 940 - 1500 = -£560
Is that right?
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
|