Centaur Property Estates Limited & Anor v Larry Thornton Scott & Ors
[2024] EWHC 127 (Ch)
South Tees Development Corporation & Anor v PD Teesport Limited
27 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 842 (Ch)
High Court
A company (PD Teesport) won a court case proving it had rights to use certain roads. Although they dropped some less important claims, they still mostly won and the judge ordered the other side to pay most of their legal costs. The judge also considered a settlement offer that was rejected, which influenced the final cost decision.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (South Tees Development Corporation & South Tees Developments Limited) and Third Party (Teesworks Limited) argued that Defendant (PD Teesport Limited) had no rights of way across their land.
- •Defendant claimed rights of way over three significant routes, including emergency access to Teesport.
- •Defendant abandoned several claims to rights of way at the start of the trial.
- •Defendant made a Calderbank offer to settle two weeks before trial, which was rejected.
- •The trial lasted six weeks.
Legal Principles
General rule on costs: unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party.
CPR 44.2(2)(a)
Court's discretion to depart from general rule on costs, considering all circumstances, including conduct of parties and whether a party succeeded on part of its case.
CPR 44.2(2)(b), (4)
Guidance on issue-based cost orders: a mere lack of success on some issues doesn't justify such an order; it's appropriate if a discrete issue caused additional costs, especially if raised unreasonably.
Pigot v Environment Agency [2020] EWHC 144
Relevance of reasonableness in raising failed points; failure to win on every issue is less significant than failing to offer to meet the winner's true entitlement.
Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership [2002] EWCA Civ 1125
Calderbank offers (without prejudice save as to costs) can be considered when determining costs, even if not strictly compliant with Part 36.
Coward v Phaestos [2014] EWCA Civ 1256, CPR 44.2(4)(c)
Outcomes
Defendant declared successful party.
Defendant established rights of way over key routes, including emergency access.
Costs order: Defendant to receive 80% of its costs until the rejection of its offer, and 100% thereafter.
Balancing Defendant's overall success with the abandonment of some claims and the rejected Calderbank offer.
20% deduction from Defendant's costs to account for abandoned claims.
Claims should have been abandoned earlier; Claimant and Third Party avoided duplication of costs; the abandoned claims did not significantly impede development.