England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Wills & Ors v Crown Estate Commissioners & Ors [2003] EWHC 1952 (Ch) (30 July 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/1952.html
Cite as: [2003] EWHC 1952 (Ch)

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

		Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 1952 (Ch)
		Case No: CH/2003/PTA/0091

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT COSTS OFFICE

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

30th July 2003

B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH
SITTING WITH ASSESSORS:
COST JUDGE CAMPBELL
MR MICHAEL HOWELLS
____________________

Between:

	(1) Robin Lionel Wills (2) John Keith Wykeham Marr (3) Eileen Patricia Marr (4) Roderick Alistair Burden (5) Wolsley House Flats Limited	Respondents/ Applicants (in the original action)
	- and -
	(1) The Crown Estate Commissioners (2) George Dennis Barrett (3) Susan Jane Barrett (4) Paul Walker	Appellants/ Respondents (in the original action)

____________________

Mr David Schmitz (instructed by Avery Clifford) for the Appellants
Mr Andrew Post (instructed by Charles Russell) for the Respondents
Hearing dates: 7th July 2003
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Mr Justice Peter Smith:

JUDGMENT ON COSTS

This judgment on costs arises out of paragraph 39 of my judgment of 14^th July when I indicated that the appellant had won on the interest point but lost on the discretion point.

I indicated in that paragraph that I thought the appeal was disproportionate and that too much time and costs had been expended by both sides arguing over very modest sums.

I indicated that I would make a costs determination on written representations to save costs but I did not encourage it and intimated that my provisional view was that both sides had won something and lost something so that I would make no order for costs on the appeal.

Despite my discouraging remarks both sides have submitted further detailed written submissions setting out why they should each have the costs of the appeal

I have carefully considered the submissions but am firmly of the view for the reasons set out above and in the earlier judgment that the proper order to make should be no order as to costs and that is the order I make in respect of the appeal costs

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