London Borough of Hounslow v Devere & Ors (Costs), Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, October 08, 2018, [2018] EWHC 2613 (Ch)

Resolution Date:October 08, 2018
Issuing Organization:Chancery Division
Actores:London Borough of Hounslow v Devere & Ors (Costs)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 2613 (Ch)

Case No: CH-2017-000286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL

Date: 8/10/2018

Before:

MR JUSTICE MORGAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Christopher Jacobs (instructed under the Bar Public Access Scheme) for the Appellants (apart from Mr DeVere)

Mr DeVere in person

Mr Gary Blaker QC (instructed by K & L Gates LLP) for the Respondent

Written submissions following judgment

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment Approved by the court for handing downMR JUSTICE MORGAN:

  1. On 14 June 2018, I handed down judgment in this case. The neutral citation of that judgment is [2018] EWHC 1447 (Ch). That judgment was in relation to an appeal against the order dated 17 November 2017 made by His Honour Judge Wulwik sitting in the County Court at Central London.

  2. On 30 July 2018, I heard submissions from the parties as to the form of the order which should be made to give effect to the conclusions reached in my judgment. On 31 July 2018, I made an order in the terms which I held to be appropriate. That order did not deal with issues as to the costs of the proceedings in the county court nor as to the costs of the appeal save that the order provided that those issues would be determined by the court following receipt by it of written submissions from the parties relating to costs.

  3. I have now received written submissions from all parties and I have considered them. The Defendants (apart from DeVere) initially submitted that the right order was that there be no order for costs either as to the proceedings in the county court or as to the appeal. In their written submissions, the Defendants (apart from Mr DeVere) made further and alternative submissions as to the orders for costs which ought to be made. Mr DeVere also submitted that there should be no order for costs throughout. Hounslow submitted that it should recover 80% of its costs of the proceedings in the county court and of the appeal. In this judgment, I deal with the outstanding issues as to costs.

  4. The nature of the dispute and the relevant facts are set out in my earlier judgment and I need not repeat those matters here. However, I do need to summarise some aspects of the dispute and the facts to the extent that they may be of importance for the purpose of determining the issues as to costs.

  5. The Particulars of Claim referred to ``the Claimant's Land'' and ``the River Works''. The first of these defined terms referred to land which was owned freehold by Hounslow although there was a dispute as to the boundaries of that land and, in particular, whether the river wall was included in the freehold title. The second of these defined terms referred to the rights of Hounslow under a licence dated 20 August 1996 granted by the Port of London Authority (``the PLA''). There was a dispute as to the nature of the rights granted to Hounslow in relation to the River Works and there was a possible distinction...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL