Description
Appeal against a refusal to order costs in commercial litigation where the action failed on its primary basis but succeeded on two of its four heads of claim.
Appeal dismissed. Held: Although claimants who achieve a material success on a fraud claim ought ordinarily to recover at least part of their costs, dishonest conduct is a powerful consideration.
In the present case, the approach to the question of what, if any, costs order to make was unimpeachable: the judge correctly noted the general rule that costs follow success but that it was nevertheless open to the court to make a different order. The claimants' conduct, particularly the finding of dishonest evidence, justified a departure from the general rule.
