Black & Ors v Davies [2005] EWCA Civ 608

Case No A2/2004/1219Case No A2/2004/1224Case No A2/2004/1508[2005] EWCA Civ 608
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY)
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Friday, 6th May 2005
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE WALLER
LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH
SIR MARTIN NOURSE
Between
HERBERT BLACKRespondentAMERICAN IRON & METALRespondentLITO TRADE INCORPORATEDRespondent-v-
Between
VIVIAN JOHN DAVIESAppellant
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes ofSmith Bernal Wordwave Limited190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR IAN MILL QC and MR PUSHPINDER SAINI (instructed by Messrs Denton Wilde Sapte) appeared for AppellantMR CLIVE FREEDMAN QC (instructed by Messrs Teacher Stern Selby) appeared for Respondents
JUDGMENTJUDGMENT ON COSTS

LORD JUSTICE WALLER:

So

[1]far as the costs of the trial are concerned, we think the right order is that there should be no order as to costs, having regard to the findings of dishonest conduct alleged and having regard to the findings of the judge in relation to the evidence given by Mr Davies.[2]So far as the costs of the appeal are concerned, we think it is right to hive off the interest appeal and that appeal will be dismissed with costs. So far as the costs of the appeal otherwise are concerned, we think that the right order, taking account of the fact that there were issues on which there was success on the respondent's side and having regard to the fact that ground (b) took up a significant amount of the preparation time, is that the Black parties should pay 60% of Mr Davies' costs.[3]So far as the freezing order is concerned, we do not think it appropriate that we should decide the issue as to whether an application should go ahead for an assessment of damages. That matter should be remitted to a High Court judge. If it was convenient, I would have thought it would be convenient to go to a commercial judge, but that is a matter entirely for the parties.[4]So far as permission to appeal to the House of Lords is concerned, we refuse permission. It will be a matter for their Lordships.

Cited in 1 later judgment