Summary

There was no reason, in the circumstances, to depart from the general rule that costs should follow the event. The landlords, who were successful in their action against the tenants, were entitled to all their costs.

Facts

The court determined costs following a successful action by the claimant landlords (C) (see Crestfort Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd (2005) EWHC 805 (Ch) , (2005) L & TR 20) against the defendant tenants (T). Prior to the trial, T had rejected an offer in respect of damages made by C. During the trial, the judge had disapproved of the conduct of the first defendant, particularly in respect of the period leading up to the commencement of the proceedings by C. Although C had failed on some issues that they raised, the trial judge had granted C an injunction requiring the surrender by the first defendant of a sublease granted to the second defendant in breach of a covenant. The trial judge had also dismissed T's counterclaim for a declaration that there had been no such breach. After the trial, T had rejected another offer made by C. The issue before the instant court was in respect of the costs of the action and counterclaim.

Held

There was no reason to depart for the general rule that costs should follow the event. Although C had failed on some issues that they raised, there should be no reduction of the award as those issues were subsidiary. In view of the T's conduct, the offers made by C, the rejection by T of both offers, C were entitled to receive an order for all their costs. Further, C were entitled under the CPR r.36.21(3) to assessment of their costs on an indemnity basis as from the latest date for acceptance of C's first offer. It was clear that T had been liable for more than the amount offered or the judgment was more advantageous to C. C were entitled to interest on the costs assessed.

Costs determined.