Black & Ors v Davies

In assessing costs, the court may take account of findings concerning alleged dishonest conduct, the reliability of evidence, success on individual issues and the time occupied by particular grounds of appeal. The appropriate orders were no order as to trial costs, dismissal of the interest appeal with costs, and payment of 60% of the remaining appeal costs by the Black parties. The court declined to determine whether an application for damages arising from a freezing order should proceed and remitted that question to a High Court judge. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

Herbert Black, American Iron & Metal and Lito Trade Incorporated were the claimants and respondents. Vivian John Davies was the defendant and appellant. The matter came to the Court of Appeal from a judgment of Mr Justice Buckley in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court. The supplied judgment concerns costs of the trial and appeal, the dismissal of an interest appeal, the appropriate costs allocation for the remaining appeal issues, a possible application for assessment of damages relating to a freezing order, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords.

1. Trial costs. Having regard to the findings concerning alleged dishonest conduct and the judge’s findings about evidence given by Mr Davies, the appropriate order was that there should be no order as to the costs of the trial.
2. Interest appeal. The interest appeal was separated from the other costs issues and dismissed with costs.
3. Remaining appeal costs. The court took account of the respondents’ success on some issues and the significant preparation time attributable to ground (b). The Black parties were therefore ordered to pay 60% of Mr Davies’s costs of the appeal otherwise than the interest appeal.
4. Freezing order. The Court of Appeal did not consider it appropriate to decide whether an application for assessment of damages should proceed. That issue was remitted to a High Court judge.
5. Further appeal. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): gave judgment on costs on 6 May 2005 in [2005] EWCA Civ 608. The interest appeal was dismissed with costs; other costs orders were made; the freezing-order damages issue was remitted; and permission to appeal was refused.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: the appeal was from the judgment of Mr Justice Buckley. The lower court’s citation and substantive disposition are not stated in the judgment supplied.