ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISION
LIVERPOOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
(His Honour Judge Maddocks - sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON
LORD JUSTICE MANCE
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
JOSEPHINE BRENNAN
Claimant
and
ALLAN KETTELL
ANTHONY KETTELL
(trading together as Diamond Fires and Fabrications)
1st and 2nd Defendants and
Part 20 Claimants/Appellants
and
H M CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS
3rd Defendant
and
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC
Part 20 Defendant/Respondent
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR N F RIDDLE (instructed by Bullivant Jones, Liverpool L2 4UR) appeared on behalf of the Appellants
MS SANDRA BRISTOLL (instructed by DLA, Manchester M2 3DL) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Friday, 25th July 2003
C O S T S
J U D G M E N T
1. LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON: We are asked to make orders for costs. So far as the costs of the Part 20 claim appeal and of that part of the hearings below which led to the Part 20 claim, there is no dispute but that the successful Part 20 claimants should be awarded their costs to be paid by the unsuccessful Bank.
2. There is also a claim that we should order the Bank to pay the Kettells' costs of and incidental to the claim. It has been pointed out to that this may depend on a number of matters, such as whether it was reasonable for the Kettells to defend the proceedings brought by Mrs Brennan. We think that the appropriate order would be to remit that matter together with the question of assessment of costs back to His Honour Judge Maddocks. He is in the best position to determine whether or not he himself should deal with that application in the light of our judgment and whether he should deal with it as a matter of discretion or whether he should deal with it as part of the assessment of damages.
3. We are also asked by the successful Part 20 claimants to make a summary assessment of the costs of the appeal. That is opposed by the Bank, which points out that there will have to be a detailed assessment of the other costs incurred in these proceedings. We think it appropriate to leave it to detailed assessment, but in so doing we would wish to draw the attention of the costs judge to our judgment and to our comments about the simplicity of the point in issue and the over-elaboration that has taken place on both sides in contesting that point.