Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Bim Kemi AB v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd [2004] EWHC 90022 (Costs) (24 June 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2004/90022.html
Cite as: [2004] EWHC 90022 (Costs)
[New search] [Help]
This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.
No.5 of 2004
Bim Kemi AB v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd
24 June 2003
Court of Appeal (Kennedy & Waller LJJ)
This was case which went to the Court of Appeal from the Commercial Court and where the former court largely overruled and reversed the decisions of the latter court. However, in accordance with the order made in the court below, the Judge’s order for costs had been the subject matter of detailed assessment, and indeed payment of the costs thereby assessed, and the issues dealt with by the Court of Appeal in this supplementary judgment, having given their main judgment on an earlier date, related to the costs’ and interest consequences of such reversal.
The court held firstly that the costs of the detailed assessment below, which totalled £3,761, was susceptible and should be ordered to be summarily repaid to the solicitors forthwith.
Secondly, the court considered the question of interest on the costs already paid, and ordered to be repaid, and held that the receiving party was only entitled to interest at 1% over base rate on those costs from the date when they were paid.
Thirdly, the court held that under CPR rule 44.3(6)(g) the power to award interest on costs was given to the court, and it should be exercised in this case from 30 January 2002, that being the date of the order of the trial Judge.
Finally, following the decisions in the court below, the parties prepared for the enquiry as to damages, and the question was whether the paying party should be responsible at that stage for those costs incurred by the party successful in the Court of Appeal, or whether they should await the outcome of the assessment, and they concluded:
"But we are persuaded on balance that these costs should await the decision on the assessment of damages."