[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> St Mary's Mansions Ltd v Limegate Investment Company Ltd & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1492 (11 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1492.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1492, [2003] 1 EGLR 41

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Green QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 11th October 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE WARD: The first sentence of paragraph 2 of my judgment refers to the judge's observation that the questions arise "in an unusually convoluted factual and procedural setting". I now have greater sympathy with the judge than was apparent at the time I wrote that judgment.
2. We have concluded this much. Of the three issues that were the subject of appeal and cross-appeal, we are of the view that very much the substantial success was enjoyed by the tenants. Issue one, in our view, has resolved substantially in their favour. They lost on issue two, the interest point, but probably no more than ten minutes or so of the appeal was taken up on that issue. They won entirely on issue three. So the substantial success was enjoyed by the tenants. Mr Cousins has realistically, and perhaps even generously, conceded that he should only have 80 per cent of the costs of the appeal, and we are happy to accept that there should be some markdown by reason of a failure to achieve a comprehensive victory.
3. St Mary's have lost their cross-appeal and should pay the costs of the cross-appeal.
4. Now for the convoluted setting. I confess that when we came into court I was expecting to have to make an order as between St Mary's and the tenants. But Mr Cowen's appearance today has clarified the procedural setting and that is, it seems to us, a claim by St Mary's against their tenant, Limegate, for service charges. Limegate have, in the circumstances explained to us, joined their tenants (Miss Sarruf being the lead tenant for this purpose). So there is that chain from St Mary's through to their tenant, Limegate, and Limegate, then putting on a landlord's hat, against its tenants. Therefore, we conclude that the right way to give effect to that procedural and that contractual relationship between the parties is to say that the tenants should have their order for 80 per cent of the costs of the appeal against Limegate, but that Limegate, now putting on their tenants' hat, are to have the same costs as against St Mary's. Likewise, with the costs of the cross-appeal, St Mary's will have to pay the costs to Limegate. Limegate, in turn, will have to pay them to the tenants.
5. We do not anticipate that there should be any difficulty in taxation because it is not beyond the wit of man to ensure that this is a tripartite assessment, and once again I dare say Limegate will be able to sit on the touch-line during the assessment, as they have done here, and allow the main protagonists to argue the question out before the costs judge.
Order: appellant tenants to have 80% of the costs of the appeal against Limegate, and Limegate to have the same costs as against St Mary's; St Mary's to pay costs of the cross-appeal to Limegate, and Limegate in turn to pay them to the tenants.