ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOWSHER QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE CLARKE
SAHIB FOODS (IN LIQUIDATION)
Claimant/Respondent
-v-
PASKIN KYRIAKIDES SANDS
Defendant/Appellant
(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)
The Appellant did not appear and was not represented
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ON COSTS
1. LORD JUSTICE CLARKE: For the reasons which have been given in the draft judgment of the court which has been handed down, I shall first indicate the order which the court will make and then give the short reasons on two points which are in dispute.
(1) The appeal of the defendant/appellant on liability is dismissed.
(2) The appeal of the defendant/appellant on contributory negligence is allowed.
(3) The damages recoverable by the claimant/respondent to be reduced by two-thirds such that the claimant/respondent is entitled to recover one-third of its damages attributable to the spread of the fire.
(4) Costs reserved, with liberty to apply.
(5) The case to be remitted back to the Technology and Construction Court in respect of issues on quantum, to be assigned to a judge and a case management conference to take place on the first available date after final determination of any application on the part of the defendant/appellant for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
(5) Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
2. There were two points in issue in relation to the order which we were asked to decide on the basis of written submissions. They relate to costs and leave to appeal.
3. I have discussed each of those points with Ward and Potter LJJ and the orders we make, following that discussion, on them which I have indicated. Our reasons on the two points were shortly these. We have decided that costs reserved with liberty to apply is preferable to fixing a date for a hearing on costs. That is because it is far from clear what such a hearing would achieve, absent a decision on quantum. However, either party can make an application for the matter to be considered and determined by this court if it wants an order.
4. As to the application by the defendants/appellants, PKS, for permission to appeal to the House of Lords, we have decided that this not a case in which it would be appropriate for this court to grant permission. For what it is worth, the case does not seem to us to raise a point of general importance, but PKS can of course seek permission to appeal from their Lordships' House. For the reasons we have given, we refuse it.
______________________________