- Issue based costs order in relief from forfeiture proceedings (General Motors v Manchester Ship Canal)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this decision?
- What was this case about?
- How did the issues in this case arise?
- Late amendment of claim
- Defence and counterclaims
- Without prejudice communications
- What were the arguments about costs which the judge had to determine?
- How did the judge decide whether to make an issue based costs order
- What costs orders did the judge make?
- Stay and interim payment
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considers the costs consequences of a successful application for relief from forfeiture of a license to drain surface water, in conjunction with a failed claim based on rights under the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1885 (the Act). The claimant sought a proportionate costs order in relation to its costs of litigating the relief from forfeiture application from the date when the defendant filed its defence and subject to a modest reduction of 10% to reflect its loss on the claim under the Act. The defendant, meanwhile, sought an issue based costs order reflecting its success defeating that part of the claim as well as the costs and expense of the litigation generally (the claimant had delayed bringing the proceedings and changed the basis on which relief was sought). The judge considered and applied the general rule under CPR 44.2 as well as the discretion to make an issue based costs order and took into account the conduct of the parties at each stage of the litigation.
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