Alamantas Ruzge & Anor v Taimour Asghar (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 78 (KB)
Julie Anne Morton v Simon Nigel Morton & Anor
15 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3223 (Ch)
High Court
Two families fought over a farm after a partnership split. A judge tried to divide the costs fairly, looking at what each side won and lost, and offers to settle. A higher court changed one decision, making it complicated. In the end, one side got some of their legal costs paid, and a little extra, because the other side missed an opportunity to settle early. But they didn't get everything because their early offer was too demanding, and the other side's late offer was considered a trick.
Key Facts
- •Dissolution of a family partnership between Jennifer Morton (deceased), her son Simon Morton, and his wife Alison Morton.
- •Jennifer's executrix, Julie Morton, sued Simon and Alison.
- •Disputes over ownership of partnership assets and post-dissolution accounts.
- •Multiple Part 36 and Calderbank offers were made by both parties.
- •Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision on statutory interest.
- •The case involved tracing asset ownership through four distinct periods.
- •Simon partially succeeded on proprietary estoppel.
- •Issues regarding the application of CPR Part 44.2 and CPR Part 36.
Legal Principles
General rule for costs: unsuccessful party pays successful party's costs.
CPR Part 44.2(2)(a)
Court considers all circumstances when deciding costs, including conduct of parties, partial success, and settlement offers.
CPR Part 44.2(4)
Calderbank offers are considered as part of overall circumstances.
CPR 44.2(4)(c)
Part 36 offers create a self-contained procedural code; if judgment is at least as advantageous as the offer, specific cost consequences apply unless unjust.
CPR Part 36, CPR 36.17
'More advantageous' in CPR 36.17(2) means better in money terms by any amount, however small.
CPR 36.17(2)
Court has discretion to adjust CPR 36.17(4) orders to avoid injustice, but burden on claimant to show injustice is high.
CPR 36.17(4), Thinc Group Ltd v Kingdom [2013] EWCA Civ 1306
Outcomes
Julie was deemed the successful party overall.
Julie achieved her primary objectives despite the Court of Appeal's reversal on statutory interest; Simon and Alison's success was more limited.
Simon and Alison to pay 50% of Julie's costs up to 26 April 2022; no order as to costs after that date.
Reflects the parties' mixed success in different phases of litigation.
Julie entitled to interest and additional amount under CPR 36.17(4) for period 14 June 2021 - 30 August 2022.
My Second Judgment was at least as advantageous as her Part 36 Offer; it would not be unjust to award relief for this period.
No order made against Julie under CPR 36.17(4) for Simon and Alison's Part 36 Offer.
Their offer was made too late and was viewed as a tactical maneuver.
Interim payment of £100,000 by Simon and Alison on account of Julie's costs.
Standard practice under CPR 44.2(8)