Description
Appeal against an issue-based order for costs dismissed. Held: It would have been better for the judge to make an order that the Second Claimant/Appellant recover only a proportion of his costs and to have made no order for costs in favour of the Defendant/Respondent, as contemplated by CPR 44.3(6)(c). Such an order is usually in the interests of both parties as minimising the need for further argument at the assessment stage. However, the judge's approach did not fall outside the ambit of reasonable decision making and the litigants would not benefit from an interference with the order. It would be costly and set a bad precedent if the matter were remitted to the judge to craft a proportoinate recovery order: 'No encouragement should be given to appeals of this nature' (at [28]).
