Northstar Systems Ltd & Ors v Fielding & Ors, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, December 06, 2006, [2007] 2 Costs LR 264,[2006] EWCA Civ 1660,[2007] CP Rep 12,[2007] 2 All ER 983

Reporting Judge: [2007] 2 Costs LR 264,[2006] EWCA Civ 1660,[2007] CP Rep 12,[2007] 2 All ER 983

President: Northstar Systems Ltd & Ors v Fielding & Ors

Linked as:

Extract

Northstar Systems Ltd & Ors v Fielding & Ors, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, December 06, 2006, [2007] 2 Costs LR 264,[2006] EWCA Civ 1660,[2007] CP Rep 12,[2007] 2 All ER 983

Case No: A2/2005/2724 and 2725

Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWCA Civ 1660

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM The Chancery Division of the High Court

Mr Justice Lewison

HC02CO3545

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Wednesday 06th December 2006

Before :

LORD JUSTICE WALLER

Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division

and

LORD JUSTICE JACOB

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of

WordWave International Ltd

A Merrill Communications Company

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Andrew Hochhauser QC, Martin Griffiths QC, Christopher Parker, Adrian Speck and Henry Ward

(instructed by Eversheds) for the Appellants

Richard Snowden QC , Iain Purvis QC and Kathryn Pickard (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard)) for the Burnden Defendants

Giles Maynard-Connor (instructed by Robinsons Solicitors) for Mr Naden

Mr Stancliffe, Solicitor Advocate, (instructed by Greenhalgh Solicitors) for Mr Clayton

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

Lord Justice Waller :

1. On 8th August 2006 we dealt with five applications for permission to appeal on behalf of the appellants (Ultraframe). As we said then, they all concerned judgments of Lewison J given in a dispute conducted by both sides as if it were ``a State trial''. The trial before him took over ninety-nine days between 11th November 2004 and 7th October 2005. He decided certain preliminary issues by a judgment delivered on 15th November 2004. He handed down his main judgment on 27th July 2005, that judgment running to 1,929 paragraphs, covering 487 pages. In the main judgment he found the respondents to this appeal guilty of serious dishonesty but also made findings by reference to which later he would say that the respondents and not Ultraframe were ``the winners''. He then delivered, after detailed submissions, a costs judgment on 7th October 2005. He ordered Ultraframe to pay costs (the detail will appear below) but making, so far as certain costs were concerned, a reduction to reflect the dishonesty he had found. He was asked to reconsider that judgment and delivered a supplemental judgment on costs on 11th November 2005 refusing to change his order. We refused all applications for permission to appeal save in relation to the appeal on costs. What we said was:-

``It is well worthy of consideration by the Court of Appeal whether, where an ultimately successful party has...

See the full content of this document