IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM DERBY COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Styler)
Friday 26th April, 2002
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE RIX
|UNITED BUILDING AND PLUMBING CONTRACTORS|
|- v -|
|MALKIT SINGH KAJLA|
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE RESPONDENT appeared on his own behalf
Crown Copyright ©
"It is of note that I heard evidence of a meeting in September  when the defendant was seeking a compromise and discussed the contract with Mr Dol and Mr Sharma, both of whom gave evidence before me. The defendant denies that he offered £10,000 to the claimant to settle. Mr Sharma told me that not only did the defendant offer £10,000 but that the claimant refused it, much to Mr Sharma's irritation and, clearly, his amazement. What is significant, in my judgment, is that in the course of that meeting I am quite satisfied that Mr Kajla did admit to Mr Dol and Mr Sharma that he had asked for additional works to be done and that is why he realised that he needed to try and compromise this claim."
"On this part of the case so far as the additional works are concerned I am bound to say I preferred the evidence of Mr Uhbi. He told me that items cropped up during the work and that Mr Kajla, who was a constant visitor, asked for the work to be done. ...
I have compared what the defendant has said about these works in his two statements. In some respects, as Mr Uhbi pointed out in evidence, they are contradictory. For example, items 3, 4 and 5: in one statement the defendant asserts that this work was included in the original contract yet in a second statement he claims that the claimant damaged the doors and therefore had to replace them. In the course of his evidence the claimant, Mr Uhbi, carefully went through each item explaining how it was additional to the improvement and security work contracted for. I accept the claimant's evidence about those works ..."
"Costs allowed to the litigant in person shall be-
(a) such costs which would have been allowed if the work had been done or the disbursements made by a legal representative on the litigant in person's behalf;
(b) the payments reasonably made by him for legal services relating to the conduct of the proceedings; ..."