Tanya Grand –v- Param Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 902

Posted on Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

C recovered £5,600.00 in damages in a claim against her landlord, which was increased to £6,452.82 by the Court of Appeal. Following the appeal, she applied for her costs against D which she put at £15,257.50. She also sought interest from 1st July 2009 and a punitive award of £1,100.00 on a basis which was unclear to the Court, a total of approximately £18,800.00. D had resisted the appeal unsuccessfully and therefore C was entitled to an order for costs in principle. However, the sum sought was unjustifiable and disproportionate. The appeal lasted less than half a day and almost the only work of value was done by Counsel acting pro bono. D should not have to pay for expenditure which was misdirected or wasted. C obtained permission to appeal on only two out of eleven grounds. Her 27 page skeleton argument was largely irrelevant and advanced an exaggerated case. C should be entitled in principle to the cost of obtaining transcript of the judgment, a small proportion of the costs of preparing her appeal documents and reasonable sums for preparing and copying bundles and researching how to process her appeal. Having considered the various heads of costs and disbursements, including 190 hours on documents and 730 hours on research, the Court allowed a figure of £703.77.


Bookmark and Share


Receive our news and updates
Enter your email address below to subscribe
Contact us
Tel: 01228 819131 Fax: 01228 501810 Dx: 63314 Penrith Email: info@paramountlegalcosts.co.uk

We have used Paramount for several years. They provide a thorough, efficient and reliable service and they are easy to communicate with.

© 2015 Paramount Legal Costs Limited