ON APPEAL FROM OXFORD COUNTY COURT
His Honour Judge Harris QC
Claim No: 9MK03135
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE
and
LORD JUSTICE VOS
____________________
PASHA SAIGOL |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
THORNEY LIMITED (t/a THORNEY MOTORSPORT) |
Respondent |
____________________
Mr Piers Hill (instructed by Geoffrey Leaver Solicitors LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 22 January 2014
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Rimer :
Introduction
The background
'1. The Car is to be released to your client free from all and any liens and claims by our client upon our client acknowledging receipt of the sealed consent order recording these terms;
2. Our client will pay to your client, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing, the sum of £2,000 within 14 days from the date of a sealed consent order recording these terms;
3. These terms are in full and final settlement of all disputes that either party has against the other; and
4. Each party is to pay their own costs.
We are instructed that this offer shall remain open to be accepted until 12 noon on Friday 9 March 2012, following which it will lapse without further notice. This is to reflect the commercial reality that our client will at this stage need to incur further expense in these proceedings.'
'27. … I will hear the parties on costs, but at present I am not disposed to make any order save that [Mr Saigol] should have his costs of the original injunction hearing. Thereafter his claim was largely misconceived. As to [Mr Thorne], he was wrongly asking [Mr Saigol] for sums to which I have found that he was not entitled, and holding on to his car because he would not pay them. Had he asked for a few hundred pounds extra rather than £5,000 or more, no doubt [Mr Saigol] would have paid.'
The argument before the judge as to costs
'… we'd instructed counsel and solicitors, so the figures had changed. I mean they could have – if they had intended to settle, they could have done it at the mediation.'
I add that I understand that the offer was not rejected by Taylor Walton at the hearing of the CMC; it was simply allowed to lapse.
'His Honour Judge Harris QC : … Now, as to costs, [Thorney] will pay [Mr Saigol's] costs of the injunction hearing – of and incidental to the injunction hearing, such costs to be taxed if not agreed. [Mr Saigol] will pay [Thorney's] costs from – would it be right to say 21 days from 8th March, Mr Hill – is it 14 days or 21 days?
Mr Hill : Usually it's 21 days for a Part 36 offer, although that offer itself …
His Honour Judge Harris QC : Well, shall we say [Thorney's] costs from 1st April 2012, to be taxed if not agreed. Otherwise no order as to costs. Right. Well, this case is really an object lesson in unfortunate litigation, but there we are. Thank you both for your assistance.'
The judge then had a short exchange with Mrs Saigol, explaining his costs order, which he concluded by saying:
'His Honour Judge Harris QC : Thereafter, there will be no order for costs, save that you or your son must pay [Thorney's] costs from 1st April 2012, to be taxed if not agreed. That is because you didn't accept the offer of £2,000 and you haven't done better than that. I'll rise now.'
The appeal
Discussion and conclusion
Lord Justice McFarlane :
Lord Justice Vos :