Kapur & Anor v David J Pinders Plc (t/a Pinders), Court of Appeal - Civil Division, December 02, 1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1888

Resolution Date:December 02, 1998
Issuing Organization:Civil Division
Actores:Kapur & Anor v David J Pinders Plc (t/a Pinders)
 
FREE EXCERPT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE QBENI 98/0631/1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

(MR JUSTICE SEDLEY)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London W2A 2LL

Wednesday 2nd December 1998

B e f o r e

LORD JUSTICE PILL

LORD JUSTICE MAY

KAPUR AND ANOTHER Appellants

v.

DAVID J PINDERS PLC Respondents

(T/A Pinders)

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of

Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street

London EC4A 2HD Tel: 0171 421 4040

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

THE APPELLANTS did not appear and were not represented.

MR ADAM TOLLEY (instructed by Messrs Squire & Co, London EC1V 4JL) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants).

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(As approved by the court)

©Crown Copyright

LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is an appeal by Suman Kapur and Aruna Kapur against a decision of Mr Justice Sedley who granted leave to appeal. The appellants were granted legal aid to pursue their appeal but that legal aid was withdrawn, the notification to the respondents being on 14 July 1998. The appellants are not present but have in writing signified their consent to the dismissal of their appeal. They have also signified their consent to paying the costs of the respondents from the date when their legal aid certificate was discharged.

The matter has been listed for hearing to consider what order should be made in relation to the Legal Aid Board. Mr Tolley on behalf of the respondents seeks an order for costs under section 18 for the period during which the appellants were legally-aided. We have considered that submission. In our judgment it is just and equitable that the respondents should have a section 18 order.

The appellants' contribution under their legal aid certificate was nil. As I have said, they have not appeared today but this court has no reason to believe or suspect that their means may have altered significantly since the date when they were assessed for legal aid. In those circumstances we state the appellants' own liability under the section 18 order to be nil. The order will be made in the usual terms. It is an order nisi, which gives the Legal Aid Board an opportunity to make representations if they see fit. By virtue of section 18(6) the respondents will also have the costs of today, the hearing being required, only because of the possible involvement, by way of a liability...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL