0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Marcos v Goodfellow

12 June 2000
The issues

Whether or not the Judge was right to adjourn the question of costs for determination of the District Judge in circumstances where there was no other issue before the parties.

The facts

Judge Rice of Southend County Court adjourned an action involving a trespass to land generally. The claim arose out of a boundary dispute. At trial one of the parties sought an adjournment on the grounds that he had only just received an expert report from the other side. The Judge refused to adjourn stating that the report should not have taken long to analyse. He heard no evidence but visited the property and decided it was all a storm in a teacup. The judge did not return to Court. Consequently no order was made. The Claimant then wrote to the Defendant asking for confirmation that a damaged fence would be re-built and that all legal fees would be paid. There was no response and the Claimant applied for an order. Re-convening the case. The case was re-listed for directions. At the Directions Hearing the District Judge took the view that the action should be stayed for a month as to enable the Claimant to consider a further offer of the Defendants. The Claimant’s son protested and eventually the District Judge withdrew the son’s permission to be on the record. By the time the Appeal came before Judge Rice the Defendant had sold the property and the new owners had written a conciliatory letter to the Claimant. The Judge asked why the action should continue and adjourn the action generally allowing any application of costs to be remitted to the District Judge.

The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. It was understandable as to why the Judge revoked the son’s permission to represent the mother.

2. However, the Judge’s Order had a difficulty in that someone had to determine what had happened before any Costs Order could be made. The issue of costs was not simply a matter which could be dealt with on an Assessment and justice required that there be a fair trial of the issues in dispute.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up