England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> London Borough of Lambeth v Headlam [2007] EWCA Civ 433 (26 April 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/433.html
Cite as: [2007] EWCA Civ 433

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA Civ 433
		Case No: B2/2006/2372

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LAMBETH COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE SIMPSON)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

26th April 2007

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE WARD
and
LORD JUSTICE WILSON
____________________

Between:

	LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH	Appellant
	- and -
	HEADLAM	Respondent

____________________

(DAR Transcript of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR O GLEDHILL (instructed by Messrs Kerdall Freeman) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR J MUNROE (instructed by DWF) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Lord Justice Ward:

Since this appeal can now be disposed of by consent, we will in accordance with the agreement made allow the appeal. We approve that agreement. It will have been perfectly obvious from the exchanges that we had formed a preliminary view that the judge was plainly wrong in the way he approached the case.

So the appeal is allowed. The consequence of that is that the judge's order is to be set aside, when he dismissed the counterclaim, and the counterclaim will be restored. It should be remitted back to the County Court to be heard by a judge other than Judge Simpson, in this case.

So far as costs are concerned, the appellant is to have the costs of the appeal. That follows the event and we so order. Looking at the schedule of costs, we see the force of the argument that there is perhaps an excessive amount of work done in the preparation of the documents, in particular. By taking a broad brush of the view of it, we will deduct just under £2,500, so that that costs we assess are £18,000.

So far as costs below are concerned, we vary the judge's order, which was no order for costs, and we substitute for that an order that the defendant is to have the costs of the claim which has been dismissed; the costs of the counterclaim remain at large, but the costs thrown away of the hearing before the judge are to be paid by the claimant to the defendant, but they have been agreed to be in the sum of £200.

Order: Appeal allowed.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010