Environment Agency v Lewin Fryer and Partners: TCC 6 Jul 2006

The defendants had started but abandoned a request against third parties, and had to pay their costs. It now sought those and its own costs from the claimant, saying that the abortive application would have been unnecessary had the claimant complied with its own disclosure obligations. The claimant said the court did not have jurisdiction to make such an order.
Held: The court had the power to make such an order, but only to the extent that the defendants’ action had been reasonable, and the result would be reasonable and appropriate. As regards the claimant’s main contractor, many of the documents were within the claimant’s control as the instructing client. The application by the defendant had been delayed as long as it could, and the claimant had not been open about its own discussions with its contractors about disclosure. As against subcontractors, the claimant did not have the same control, and a costs order against the claimants was not appropriate in those respects.

Judges:

peter Coulson QC J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1597 (TCC), (2006) 22 Const LJ 574

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 31 44.3

Litigation Practice, Costs, Construction

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244135