Burgess and Others v Stevedoring Services Ltd
Jurisdiction | Bermuda |
Judgment Date | 11 May 2000 |
Date | 11 May 2000 |
Docket Number | Civil Jurisdiction 1998 No. 314 |
Court | Supreme Court (Bermuda) |
In the Supreme Court of Bermuda
Meerabux, J
Civil Jurisdiction 1998 No. 314
-and-
and
Mr. A. Dunch for the Plaintiff
Mr. D. Duncan for the Defendants
De Groote 1991 Civil Jur. No. 148
EMI Records v WallaceUNK [1982] 2 All ER 980
Munkenbeck & Marshall (A Firm) v McAlpineUNK 44 Con LR 30
Rules of the Supreme Court, O. 62, R. 4(1)
Application to stay execution of order pending appeal — Stay against costs — Indemnity costs
The Defendants made an Application by Summons to the Court for an Order to stay the execution of the decision of the Supreme Court dated 6 April 2000 until the determination or other disposal of the appeal against that decision.
At this hearing Mr. Duncan informed the Court that he would instead pursue a stay against costs if costs were awarded against the Defendants. Hence, the matter for consideration is the Plaintiff's application for costs against the Defendants.
Costs are in the discretion of the Court which has a wide discretion over the award of costs. Order 62 Rule 3(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides that ‘if the Court in the exercise of its discretion sees fit to make any order as to the costs of or incidental to any proceedings, the Court shall, subject to this Order, order costs to follow the event, except when it appears to the Court that in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made as to the whole or any part of the costs.’
First, I look at the result of the proceedings itself. The Defendants were unsuccessful. The Defendants' case having entirely failed then I think that it is fit to make an order as to costs.
Secondly, I rule that costs follow the event and that the Plaintiff is entitled to all its costs.
Thirdly, the question is on what basis those costs should be assessed. The Plaintiff argued that indemnity costs be paid forthwith against the three named Defendants, for the reasons that the Defendants' conduct was calculated to harm the Plaintiff's business, was unnecessary and inappropriate when fora existed including this Court to hear their grievances and they chose not to use the fora but did acts to coerce the Plaintiff. He also argued that the Defendants acted in a manner...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bank of Bermuda Ltd v Minister of Community Affairs & Sport
...... parte MuldoonUNK [1984] 2 All ER 705 Burgess v Stevedoring Services LtdWLR [2002] 1 WLR 2838 ... In support of this contention the Respondent relies on Burgess and Others v Stevedoring Service Ltd [2002] 1 WLR (PC) . The Respondent ......
-
Phoenix Global Fund Ltd and Phoenix Capital Reserve Fund Ltd v Citigroup Fund Services (Bermuda) Ltd and the Bank of Bermuda Ltd
...Ltd [2008] Bda LR 55 Reid Minty v Taylor [2001] EWCA Civ 1723 DeGroote v MacMillan [1993] Bda LR 66 Stevedoring Services Ltd v Burgess [2000] Bda LR 33 Abstract: Indemnity costs - Conduct of the parties RULING ON COSTS of BELL, Introduction 1. This ruling concerns an application for indemni......
-
Hopewell International Insurance Ltd v Gold Medal Insurance Company 1995 Civil Jur. No. 206
......No. 446 Stevedoring Services Ltd v Burgess 1998 Civil Jur. No. 314 ...446 and in Stevedoring Services Limited v Derrick Burgess and Others , Supreme Court of Bermuda, Civil Jurisdiction, 1998 No. 314 . In ......
-
Phoenix Global Fund Ltd et Al v Citigroup Fund Services (Bermuda) Ltd et Al
...trial judge before whom the question falls to be determined. And I note that in case of Stevedoring Services Limited v. Burgess et al [2000] Bda L.R. 33, Meerabux, J. cited a passage from the judgment of Kerr, L.J. in the case of Disney v. Plummer ( Unreported, 16 November 1987) in which th......