Gharavu-Nakhjavani v Pelagias

J U D G M E N T

1. LADY JUSTICE ARDEN: Having regard to the submissions made after the judgment, the court makes the following directions:

(1) This matter shall be remitted to a Master of the Chancery Division who is other than Deputy Master Weir, and who is a full time Master.

(2) The objections to be taken before the Master on this account shall be limited to those already made in writing, save that the claimants may, if so advised, commit to writing any objection actually made orally to Master Weir in respect of expenditure after 1st May 1998 and submit that objection, so formulated, to the defendant for agreement that it was so made; and, if so, that objection will constitute an objection without the final answer and be taken into account and the defendant should respond to it within a month thereafter. If the parties are not able to agree on what objections were made to Deputy Master Weir orally in respect of expenditure after 1st May, the matter should be referred to a Master of the Chancery Division.

(3) The next point is the question of the evidence. Save with the permission of the court, the evidence of grounds under the remitted account is to be that formerly before Deputy Master Weir.

(4) If Mr Pelagias wishes, on the remitted account, to rely upon the evidence of Mr Tsielepsis, he must serve a witness statement of Mr Tsielepsis' evidence within not later than two months before the date fixed for the taking of the account and the appellant is to be at liberty to cross-examine Mr Tsielepsis, on giving appropriate notice, and he is therefore at liberty to reply, within one month of receiving the witness statement, to the evidence of Mr Tsielepsis.

2. The parties are to be at liberty to apply to the Master for cross-examination of the contractors whose witness statements are included in the bundle and also the cross-examination of Mr Pelagias; and Mr Pelagias is likewise at liberty to apply to give further evidence on new material. Such application is to be made before the Master. Subject to direction of the court, the cross-examination of Mr Pelagias should likewise be directed to new matters, which have been put in evidence subsequent to the hearing of the Deputy Master.

3. As to alternative dispute resolution, the court makes an order in the form set out at page 260 of Volume 2 of Civil Procedure. The parties are to agree appropriate dates according to paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of that form of order. If they are not able to do so, they will refer the matter to the Case Management Conference within a fixed time limit.

4. As to costs, for the purpose of the submissions of Mr Blaker and Mr Devlin, first as to the costs of this appeal, we take the view that they should be the costs of the appellant as the appellant has succeeded on the appeal. However, as to the basis of those costs, we hold that the basis should be the standard basis, not on the indemnity basis as sought by the appellant. We consider that the correspondence that we have been shown and the offers that have been referred to in submissions do not justify that those costs are ordered. Had there been offers on the defendant's side, they would be taken into account.

5. The costs of taking the account before Deputy Master Weir are reserved to the Master taking the remit of the account.

Order: Appeal allowed. Account to be remitted to a full Master of the Chancery Division. Order that objections be limited to those made in writing. ADR proceedings ordered. Costs awarded to the appellant and reserved to the Master of the Chancery Division.