The Judge, at the trial of an action in which there was a claim and counterclaim, thinking both parties in the wrong, dismissed the action without costs, and also dismissed the counter-claim with costs, but ordered that if the costs of the counter-claim should not amount to half the whole costs of the action the Defendant should pay the difference to the Plaintiff.
Held: The order as to costs was irregular, inasmuch as, after dismissing the action without costs, it imposed part of the costs of the action upon the Defendant by way of penalty ; hut that in substance the order was within the discretion of the Judge, as it amounted to dismissing the claim and counter-claim and directing the Defendant to pay half the whole costs of the action.
Jessel MR
[1881] UKLawRpCh 181, (1881) 17 ChD 772
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from (ChD) – Willmott v Barber ChD 19-Jun-1880
In 1869 Barber granted a 99-year lease of three acres of land in east London, subject to a covenant against assignment or sub-letting without consent. In 1874, in breach of covenant, he sub-let one acre on an annual tenancy to Willmott (who owned a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.653256