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?

Islam v Ali, Court of Appeal, 26 March 2003

31 March 2003
The issues

Costs – offer – offer to settle.

The facts

The claim related to an action for recovery of fees by a Chartered Accountant. He claimed that he had an agreement that in due course he would purchase the business and in the meanwhile that he would run the business and collect the profits. He claimed £156,000.00 or £80,000.00, taking into account amounts he had already received. The other party offered in negotiations £45,000.00. When it went to Trial, he received under £13,000.00 and was awarded costs. The Defendant appealed on the basis that there was such a disparity between the claim and what had been awarded, that it was not fair to say that the Claimant had “won”.

The decision

1. The general rule was that the successful party received costs from the unsuccessful party.

2. The Trial Judge always had a discretion.

3. In exercising discretion, he had to have regard to all the circumstances, including conduct, success on part or all of the case, payments into court and offers to settle.

4. The Judge had found for the Claimant on significant issues as a result of which the award was of relative insignificance in comparison to the claim.

5. The Judge failed to have due regard for the fact that the Defendant had won in principle. The Judge’s Order would be set aside and substituted with no Order as to costs.

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