Judgments - Hurst v. Bryk and Others

(back to preceding text)

Mr. Trepass asks for his costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis. Although I agree that as against Mr. Trepass Mr. Hurst's appeal should be struck out as incompetent I can see no sufficient reason for awarding Mr. Trepass indemnity costs. He did not lodge a separate objection to Mr. Hurst's application for leave to appeal to your Lordships' House, but contented himself with repeated assertions in correspondence with Mr. Hurst's solicitors that the appeal was of no relevance to him because the proceedings against him had been stayed and were liable to be struck out. Having made no attempt to object to the grant of leave, he instructed his own counsel to sign the respondents' case on his behalf, and personally signed the agreed statement of facts and issues. He appeared before the Appellate Committee by separate counsel, and lodged a skeleton argument which dealt with the merits as well as the competency of the appeal. In the circumstances I think that he is entitled to his costs but taxed on the standard basis in the ordinary way.


I would dismiss the appeal as against all the respondents including Mr. Trepass, with costs to be taxed on the standard basis.


Lords Parliament Commons Search Contact Us Index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 28 March 2000