[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Eclipse IT Ltd v TC Designs Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 48 (16 January 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/48.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 48

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
(Mr Recorder Peddie QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 16th January 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: In this matter Mr Bridge on behalf of the respondents has applied to the court to make an order requiring Messrs Garstangs, the appellants' solicitors, to show cause why a wasted costs order should not be made against them. Garstangs were the appellants' solicitors who had the carriage of the appeal. Only yesterday they notified the court that they were no longer instructed by the appellants, that they would not be attending the hearing today and that their clients would not be attending the hearing today. They remain on the record, and as a result of nobody attending to support the appeal the appeal was dismissed. Mr. Bridge submits that there is a case here for enquiring as to whether the appellants' solicitors should pay a wasted costs order under section 71(6) of the Supreme Court Act.
2. The court will refer the question of wasted costs to a district judge of the Central London County Court under rule 48.7(7). It appears that it would be appropriate for the district judge who is seized of the matter to give an appropriate direction to Garstangs to show cause why they should not pay a wasted costs order and set out a timetable for the hearing. In those circumstances, all the court will do is to refer the question of wasted costs to a district judge of the Central London County Court in order that he or she may take the matter further.
3. It would be as well if, in addition to having the matter transferred to a district judge, the respondent's solicitors wrote to Garstangs indicating the procedure which has been set in motion. It may be that Messrs Garstangs will then be able to provide a response which will satisfy the respondent's solicitors that it is not worth pursuing this course, thereby saving the costs of an inquiry. It may be that when the inquiry is embarked on problems of legal professional privilege may arise, which may make it difficult for a district judge to decide whether it is just to make an order or not. All those matters are in the future. For today's purposes, all that we will do is to make a reference under rule 48.7(7). The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs on the appellants' non-attendance. The appellants must pay £2,500 within 14 days on account of costs. We make the reference in relation to the wasted costs order to which I have referred.
Orders: Appeal dismissed with costs; appellants to pay £2,500 on account of costs within 14 days; reference made in relation to a wasted costs order.