ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE MADDOCKS
(sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court))
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON
LORD JUSTICE MANCE
LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH
(1) OBG LIMITED
(2) OBG (PLANT & TRANSPORT HIRE) LIMITED
Claimants/Respondents
-v-
(1) IAIN JOHN ALLAN
First Defendant/Appellant
(2) MICHAEL FRANCIS STEVENSON
Second Defendant/Appellant
(3) RAYMOND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(formerly Raymond Centriline Limited)
Third Defendant
(4) PENNINGTONS
Fourth 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)
MR ALAN STEINFELD QC and MR ALISTAIR WYVILL (instructed by Messrs Hammonds, Manchester) appeared on behalf of the Appellants
MR GREGORY MITCHELL QC (instructed by Messrs Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, London WC1V 7HA) appeared on behalf of the Respondents
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ON COSTS
LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON: There are four points that now arise for decision resulting from the judgments of this court.
First, is the form of the order. Part of that order has been agreed, in particular, that the damages amount to £244,000 and not the sum which the judge ordered. So his order must be set aside and that amount awarded. Interest is also agreed. It is in the sum of £140,527.02 and that too must be paid. It has been accepted in this court that paragraph 22 of the receivers' skeleton argument will not be pursued if the decision of the majority in this court stands. If there are any other questions arising from the judgment which are not agreed, we would remit the matter back to the judge, but we do so on the footing that the parties will try to agree what they can.
The second point relates to the costs of the appeals in this court, that is to say both of the appeal and of the cross-appeal. It seems to us that the successful appellants must receive the bulk of their costs, save for the costs of the application for permission to appeal before Neuberger LJ. Those costs should lie where they fall. But as to the other costs in this court, having regard to the matters on which the appellants have won and the matters on which OBG have won, we think that the appropriate order is that 80% of the costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal should be paid by OBG to the receivers.
As for the costs below, the judge made an order on 18th December 2002 which it is agreed should not be disturbed. The judge has yet to make any costs order in respect of the proceedings before him. We think it appropriate to leave it to him to determine the costs below in the light of this court's judgments.
The fourth matter relates to permission to appeal. We accept that there are important issues which would be raised in the proposed appeal, but we think it appropriate to leave the decision as to whether the Lords should hear the appeal to their Lordships' House. We would add that we do not regard the point on the proviso of the order as determinative, although two members of this court expressed a view to OBG on that.
So we ourselves refuse permission to appeal.
______________________________