Miah Ibar Lone v Michael Andreas Petrou
[2024] EWHC 153 (KB)
Phyllis Rampersad and another v Deo Ramlal and 3 others (Trinidad and Tobago)
8 December 2022
[2022] UKPC 50
Privy Council
The Rampersads lost a lawsuit because they lied in court. The judge made them pay the other side's legal fees. They tried to appeal just the fees part, but the appeal court and then the Privy Council said they weren't allowed to do that because their original case was so bad and they didn't follow the rules properly. They still have to pay the fees.
Key Facts
- •Phyllis and Bhim Rampersad (Appellants) made serious allegations of fraud and forgery against Deo Ramlal and others (Respondents).
- •The trial judge dismissed the Appellants' claim and ordered them to pay the Respondents' costs, to be assessed by the Registrar.
- •The Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal only against the costs order.
- •The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process.
- •The Appellants appealed to the Privy Council.
Legal Principles
General rule in Trinidad and Tobago is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party's costs, but the court can make different orders considering various factors (conduct of parties, success on specific issues, reasonableness of pursuing issues, manner of pursuing case).
Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 (CPR) Rule 66.6
Costs quantification methods under CPR Part 67 include fixed costs, prescribed costs, budgeted costs, and assessed costs.
CPR Part 67
Appeals against costs orders generally require leave of the judge or Court of Appeal; exceptions include genuine appeals on merits, errors of law affecting costs, or failure to judicially exercise discretion.
Supreme Court of Judicature Act, section 38(1)(2); CPR Rule 64.2
Appeals against costs orders should ideally be made to the trial judge first; Court of Appeal can hear appeals without prior permission in limited circumstances.
CPR Rule 64.14; Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Mohammed; Motor and General Insurance Co Ltd v Sanguinette
Adequate reasons are required for costs orders, especially in the appellate process, to ensure fairness and enable proper review.
English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd
Outcomes
Privy Council dismissed the appeal.
The Appellants' grounds of appeal lacked merit, ignoring the lack of merit of their underlying claims, procedural deficiencies in their appeal process, and inability to justify their substantive appeal. The trial judge's costs order was a justified exercise of discretion given the Appellants' dishonest conduct.
Trial judge's costs order upheld.
The judge's decision to award assessed costs, rather than prescribed costs, was justified given the serious, ultimately false, allegations made by the Appellants and their dishonest conduct during the trial. While ideally the appellants should have been given an opportunity to address the court before this order, no prejudice resulted.
Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appeal upheld.
The Court of Appeal correctly found the appeal to be an abuse of process due to the Appellants' failure to obtain leave to appeal against the costs order, inadequately formulating their grounds of appeal, and the lack of merit in their substantive appeal.
Court of Appeal's costs order upheld.
The Court of Appeal’s costs order was a reasonable exercise of discretion given the Appellants' last-minute abandonment of the merits of their appeal and the failure of their application for permission to appeal against the costs order.