Burgess and Others v Stevedoring Services Ltd

JurisdictionBermuda
Judgment Date11 May 2000
Date11 May 2000
Docket NumberCivil Jurisdiction 1998 No. 314
CourtSupreme Court (Bermuda)

In the Supreme Court of Bermuda

Meerabux, J

Civil Jurisdiction 1998 No. 314

BETWEEN
Stevedoring Services Limited
Plaintiff

-and-

Derrick Burgess
Christopher Furbert
Sinclair Smith

and

Orin Simmons (Sued on their own behalf and on behalf of the Members of the Portworkers' Division of the Bermuda Industrial Union)
Defendants

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

RULING ON STAY APPLICATION AND 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
6 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT