Jersey Unreported Judgments

Fraud - costs judgment.

[2012]JRC157

Royal Court

(Samedi)

28 August 2012

Costs Judgment

On Defendants' application to re-amend their Answer

Advocate S. M. Baker for the Plaintiffs.

Advocate D. S. Steenson for the Defendants.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        This is the Court's ruling on the plaintiffs' application for an indemnity costs order against the defendants consequent on the Court's refusal of an application by the defendants for leave to re-amend their answer.  The defendants' application was made by summons dated 18^th June, 2012, and was heard on the first day of the trial on 2^nd July, 2012, the Court's reasons for refusing the application being set out very fully in a judgment handed down on 4^th July, 2012. 

2.        It was subsequently agreed that the matter of costs, which had been reserved, should be dealt with by way of submissions in writing.  I have duly received such submissions from Advocate Baker and Advocate Steenson dated 20^th July and 30^th July, 2012, respectively. 

3.        The only point at issue is whether the order should be for indemnity or standard based costs.  It appears that Mr Steenson would not resist an order on the latter basis. 

4.        The principles to be applied by the Court on an application for indemnity costs have been subject of exposition in a series of decisions of the Court of Appeal, three of them in the past two years.  However, it is now unnecessary to look beyond the most recent of those decisions, Leeds United Football Club Limited-v-Weston and Levi [2012] JCA 088 (Steel, Jones and McNeill JJ.A.) as handed down on 3^rd May this year, which draws together the essential points of the earlier decisions.  It was common ground between the Advocates that the relevant principles are those summarised by Jones J.A. giving the judgment of the Court in that case.  It is unnecessary to replicate them here. 

5.        The plaintiffs' application appears to me to fall squarely within those principles and to be well justified for the reasons already given in the Court's judgment of 4^th July, 2012.  It is unnecessary to add anything further except to say that there is nothing in Mr Steenson's written submissions on this present application that causes me to depart from the views expressed in that judgment concerning the timing, manner and substantive merits of the defendants' application to re-amend. 

6.        There will, accordingly, be an order that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the determination of (i) the defendants' summons and (ii) this present application, on the indemnity basis. 

Authorities

Leeds United Football Club Limited-v-Weston and Levi [2012] JCA 088.