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

Toyota Financial Services (UK) Plc v Sharma

25 September 2002
The issues

Costs – proportionality

The facts

The Defendant was a Director of Bridge House Motors Limited which held a dealership from the Claimants. They received financial assistance from the Claimant and the Defendant and his wife entered into guarantees. They defaulted and the Claimant sued on the guarantee. The Claimants obtained a Summary Judgment before the Master. As against the husband, the claim was £353,000.00 and the costs £147,500.00. As against the wife, the claim was £71,500.00 and the costs £121,857.00.

The proceedings took less than a year.

Before the Master on the Summary Judgment Application were 3 lever arch files of documents. Essentially, the Master on the Summary Judgment Application took the view that the Defendant was taking technical points.

The Defendant argued that the costs were disproportionate. The Claimant instructed Mr Graham, a Senior Partner, who had run the case with assistance from no less than 15 other Fee Earners, although never all 15 at the same time.

The decision

1. The way in which this case had been conducted was similar to “using a sledge hammer to crack a nut”.

2. The Claimant’s Solicitors had “carried out a deluxe job”.

3. The costs were disproportionate in accordance with the decision in Lownds -v- The Home Office. The costs payable by the First Defendant would be reduced to £58,304.00 and against the Second Defendant £39,867.00.

4. In view of the substantially reduced sums allowed, the Claimants would be allowed only one half of their costs of the Detailed Assessment.

focus on...

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.

View

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.

View

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.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

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