British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Sukul-Lennard v Croydon Primary Care Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1193 (22 July 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1193.html
Cite as: [2003] EWCA Civ 1193
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM AN EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
(His Honour Judge McMullen QC)
Strand London, WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE MANCE
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
____________________
| SUKUL-LENNARD | Claimant/Appellant | |
| -v- | ||
| CROYDON PRIMARY CARE TRUST | Defendant/Respondent |
____________________
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 Respondent did not appear and was unrepresented.
Tuesday, 22nd July 2003
C O S T S
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON: We are now asked to deal with the question of costs.
- It was suggested by the respondent in correspondence that the appeal should be dealt with in the way in which this court has now held it should be dealt with. It was resisted on behalf of Mrs Sukul-Lennard and on that issue, which is a discrete issue, Mrs Sukul-Lennard has lost. True it is that the final outcome of the litigation is unknown, but where there is a discrete issue it is the almost invariable practice of this court to award costs to the successful party unless there are very special circumstances. None such has been suggested in this case.
- Accordingly, we think it appropriate that we order Mrs Sukul-Lennard to pay the respondent's costs thrown away by her not accepting the invitation in the correspondence to deal with the matter as the respondent had suggested. But we will add a further direction that that order for costs should not be enforced until the end of the conclusion of the litigation.
Order: As above.