An early Christmas present for the Claimant when no order as to costs was concluded following service of a notice of discontinuance. This claim related to a long-running and ill-tempered dispute between the parties as to how the affairs of the company should be managed, and in particular, the cost of refurbishment in 2014-2016 of the communal areas of the property, and the consequent treatment of the cost of that refurbishment in the company’s statutory accounts.
When determining whether to depart from the usual principle (Claimant pay the costs following discontinuance CPR 38.6), the Judge placed considerable weight on the Defendant’s conduct. The judge determined the Defendant acted unreasonably (and therefore landed themselves on the naughty list) as they failed to attend a general meeting unless the Claimant met certain demands and also failed to engage at all with the Claimant’s proposals.
The Judge concluded that the criticisms of the Defendants did not justify an order that the Defendant pay the Claimants costs and decided that the appropriate order was “no order as to costs”.
This claim highlighted that whilst the burden is on the Claimant to show good reason for departing from the usual position (CPR 38.6), the Defendant’s conduct can be an important factor in the Court’s decision.
The full judgement can be read here
If you have any questions regarding this summary case law please contact Karl here