Eclipse I.T. Ltd v T.C. Designs Ltd

An appeal may be dismissed where the appellant and its solicitors do not attend the hearing to support it. The court may refer a wasted-costs question to a district judge under rule 48.7(7), with directions to show cause and set a timetable. Potential legal professional privilege issues may be considered during that inquiry. The court may also order costs arising from the non-attendance and payment on account.

The appellants appealed from the Central London County Court. Neither the appellants nor their solicitors attended the Court of Appeal hearing. The respondents applied for an order requiring the appellants’ solicitors to show cause why a wasted costs order should not be made under section 71(6) of the Supreme Court Act.

The court had to determine the immediate procedural consequences of the non-attendance and whether the wasted-costs question should be referred for further consideration.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed because nobody attended to support it. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents’ costs, including £2,500 within 14 days on account.
2. Wasted costs reference. The court referred the question whether the appellants’ solicitors should be subject to a wasted costs order to a district judge of the Central London County Court under rule 48.7(7). The district judge was to direct the solicitors to show cause and set a timetable for the hearing.
3. Further procedure. The respondents’ solicitors were encouraged to notify the appellants’ solicitors of the procedure. A response might avoid the costs of an inquiry. The court recognised that legal professional privilege issues might arise during the inquiry and affect whether it was just to make an order, but left those matters for the district judge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the Central London County Court was dismissed for non-attendance. The wasted-costs issue was referred to a district judge under rule 48.7(7).
• Central London County Court: Appeal heard before Mr Recorder Peddie QC; the judgment does not state the outcome below.