What are the consequences of naming one party as the opponent in a CFA but then succeeding in the claim against another party?
This is a long-running issue with various non-binding and conflicting decisions on the issue including Brierley v Prescott [2006] EWHC 90062 (Costs), Law v Liverpool City Council [2005] EWHC 90020 (Costs), Scott v Transport for London (2009) (unreported) and Brookes v DC Leisure Management Ltd & Anor [2013] EW Misc 17 (CC).
Deputy Master Friston has recently handed down judgment in another case addressing this issue in Hailey v Assurance Mutuelle Des Motards (SCCO, 2015). Although the facts of the case were rather unusual, the reasoning adopted is of more general application.
One more case to throw into the mix.
Pingback: CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS & SANCTIONS: LINKS TO RECENT ARTICLES AND POSTS | Civil Litigation Brief
Pingback: COSTS NOT RECOVERED WHEN DEFENDANT NOT NAMED IN CFA: SENIOR COSTS OFFICE DECISION | Civil Litigation Brief
Permission to appeal granted and one would imagine that it will succeed.