ON APPEAL FROM OLDHAM COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER FORDHAM QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE PILL
SIR WILLIAM ALDOUS
AJITSINGH MEDTIA
Claimant/Appellant
-v-
MUNEER HAMID
First Defendant/Respondent
and
RICHARD CLARE
Second Defendant
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph 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 D GILCHRIST (instructed by Wrigley Claydon) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
THE RESPONDENT APPEARED IN PERSON
THE SECOND DEFENDANT APPEARED IN PERSON
J U D G M E N T
Friday, 21st May 2004
1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is an appeal against a decision given in the Oldham County Court in favour of Dr Hamid against the claimant, Mr Medtia. A second defendant, Mr Richard Clare, was involved. Judgment was given in his favour with costs, which we are told have since been certified at £6,900.
2. To the surprise of the members of the court, Mr Clare has appeared on the hearing of the appeal. The appeal is only against the judgment in favour of Dr Hamid. Dr Clare has, however, referred to the letters received from the court in relation to today's hearing. What is more, he has referred to the fact that the order for costs in his favour has been stayed by an order of the County Court of its own initiative, dated 8th December 2003, "Enforcement of the final costs certificate be stayed until the finalisation of the appeal or further order." It is clear from correspondence that the claimant has sought to rely upon that stay and the reference to the finalisation of the appeal. In all the circumstances we do not find it surprising, now we have been told of the circumstances, or blame Mr Clare, for his attendance today.
3. The only matter we deal with now, pending a possible further argument as to what part he should play at the hearing, are two matters. First, to indicate that the stay cannot any longer stand, and Mr Gilchrist rightly and inevitably concedes that. Second, Mr Clare does apply for the costs of today.
4. In principle we consider that he is entitled to an order for costs. However, we bear in mind all the circumstances, and his lack of enquiry with the claimant's solicitors as to the object of his appearing today and whether it was necessary for him to do so. It is clear that this is a protracted and unfortunate piece of litigation. We shall hear submissions about the substantive appeal, I hope, very shortly, but we deal with this as a preliminary point and we need to do justice between the parties.
5. We think an award of anything like the figure of £2,730, which Mr Clare claims, is quite out of proportion and would not do justice between the parties. It is claimed on the basis of 40 hours' work at the architect's rate (he works as an architect) of £65 an hour. He relies on the fact that the judge making the costs order was prepared to accept that figure. We consider that he should only have a figure relating to today. He has pointed out what a long day it is for him. We cannot get anywhere near a figure of 40 hours as being reasonably attributable to costs which the claimant ought to pay. It is not clear to us how that amount in time can be spent.
6. What we consider Mr Clare should fairly receive is his rail fare, £180, and a further sum representing his time as a litigant in person for the day. The total order we make, including that for the rail fare, in his favour, is one of £350.
ORDER: Stay no longer to stand; costs of £350 awarded to Second Defendant.