Phyllis Rampersad and another v Deo Ramlal and 3 others (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2022] UKPC 50
Rollin Clifton Bertrand and others v Anthony Elias (Trinidad and Tobago)
26 September 2023
[2023] UKPC 34
Privy Council
Three people sued someone for saying bad things about them. They dropped the lawsuit before trial. The person they sued wanted to be paid back for their lawyer fees. Normally, there's a set amount for lawyer fees in these cases, but the judge decided to calculate the fees based on how much it *actually* cost because the case was unfair and complex. A higher court agreed.
Key Facts
- •Rollin Clifton Bertrand, Trinidad Cement Ltd (TCL), and Caribbean Cement Ltd (CCL) brought defamation proceedings against Dr Anthony Elias.
- •The proceedings were discontinued by the claimants.
- •The defendant was entitled to costs under rule 38.6(1) of the CPR.
- •The dispute centered on whether costs should be quantified as prescribed costs (TT$27,000) under rule 67.5 of the CPR or assessed costs (TT$559,695) under rules 67.1 and 67.12.
- •The High Court ordered assessed costs, while the Court of Appeal held that prescribed costs should apply, remitting the case to the trial judge for stipulation of the claim's value.
- •The defendant appealed to the Privy Council, arguing that the general rule for prescribed costs should be displaced in favor of assessed costs due to unfairness and the complexity of the case.
Legal Principles
Liability for costs following discontinuance.
CPR rule 38.6(1)
Quantification of costs in civil proceedings.
CPR Parts 67 and 68
General rule for prescribed costs in discontinuance.
CPR rule 38.7(1) and rule 67.5
Discretion to assess costs instead of prescribed costs.
CPR rules 67.6, 67.8, and inherent jurisdiction
Value of the claim for prescribed costs in defendant's favor.
CPR rule 67.5(2)(b)(ii)
Outcomes
Privy Council allowed the defendant's appeal.
The Court of Appeal erred in failing to exercise its discretion regarding the application of prescribed costs versus assessed costs. The Privy Council exercised this discretion, considering the cumulative reasons below.
Costs to be assessed by a Master in Chambers.
The case was deemed exceptional due to several factors: the claimants' acknowledgment that the proceedings were ill-founded; the defendant's detailed estimate of costs; the disproportion between likely prescribed costs and actual costs; the importance of the claim; and the potential negative impact on access to justice and freedom of speech.
Similar Cases
Caribbean Welding Supplies Ltd v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2024] UKPC 7
Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)
Jerry Isah, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 268
Alexander Gorbachev v Andrey Grigoreyvich Guriev
[2023] EWCA Civ 327