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

Forgotten your password?

Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hamer Aspden and Johnson, Court of Appeal, 12 June 2002

19 June 2002
The issues

Costs – conduct – indemnity basis – Part 36.

The facts

The Claimant succeeded at Trial against the Second Defendant, but failed against the First Defendant. Both Defendants together had made a Part 36 payment of £100,000.00 one day before the Trial. The Claimant was awarded only nominal damages in fact against the Second Defendant. The Trial Judge ordered that the Claimant pay both Defendants costs up until one day after the payment in (8th June – the day on which the Trial started) on a standard basis and on an indemnity basis thereafter. The Claimant appealed, arguing that the costs Order should have been made in its favour against the Second Defendant, against whom it had succeeded.

The decision

1. The Judge had heard arguments as to costs and had had the benefit of knowing all the factors in the case. The Trial Judge was in a better position than the Court of Appeal to determine where costs should lie.

2. There were an infinite variety of situations that might occur, which might justify different types of costs orders. It was not possible therefore to give guidance to Judges as to when it was appropriate to order indemnity costs. Such matters were best left to the Judge’s discretion following the rules provided in the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court noted that a Judge had extensive discretion in Part 44. Generally, it would only be appropriate however for indemnity costs to be award where the facts of the case or conduct of the parties took the situation away from the norm.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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