- High Court makes issues-based costs order (Flanagan v Liontrust Investments)
- Practical implications
- Henderson J's approach to determining who is the successful party per CPR 44.2(2)
- Henderson J's departure from the general rule under CPR 44.2(2)(a) to make an issues-based costs order
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Henderson J has concluded that the claimant was the successful party on the question of costs despite his having failed on the ultimate question of law as to whether he was entitled to a share in a limited liability partnership (LLP) following service of termination notices on him. He recognised that the claimant had succeeded on all the prior steps in the argument and that the claim was ultimately one about money—whether through the medium of a buy-out order or a contractual claim for a fixed share of profits. The amount recovered, while substantially less than the claimant’s Part 36 offer, was not insignificant. Notwithstanding this, Henderson J went on to consider that there were ‘powerful reasons’ for his departing from the general rule in CPR 44.2(2)(a) such that he would not order the defendant to pay the whole of the claimant’s (assessed) costs and instead made an issues-based costs order. The net effect of this was that successful claimant would have to pay substantially more in costs than he received from the defendant.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial