Pajama Ltd v Ferpet Investments Ltd

CourtRoyal Court
Judge(Crill, Deputy Bailiff):
Judgment Date10 June 1982
Date10 June 1982
(Crill, Deputy Bailiff):

R.J. Michel for the plaintiff;

S.A. Pearmain for the defendant.

Arbitrationcosts"legal costs"means costs recoverable in law, not merely costs incurred by legal profession

Arbitrationcostspreparation of and dealing with casecompany may charge for employing own specialist staff instead of outside experts, restricted to reasonable sum for actual and direct costs of workmay not charge for time of shareholders in instructing company's advocates

Arbitrationcostsprinciples of awardin arbitration subject to same principles as in proceedings in Royal Court

Companieslegal proceedingscostsmay charge for employing own specialist staff to prepare and deal with case, restricted to reasonable sum for actual and direct costs of workmay not charge for time of shareholders in instructing company's advocates

CRILL, DEPUTY BAILIFF: This is an appeal by Ferpet Investments Limited from an order of the Greffier taxing a number of accounts as a result of the award by an arbitrator who was appointed to settle the differences between the parties out of Court. There are three matters to which I wish to refer. First, in deciding how to approach the question of costs, the award of costs before an arbitrator is subject to the same principles as the award of costs by this Court. Secondly, the expression "legal costs" used by the arbitrator in his award should be interpreted broadly so as to not leave the plaintiff in a disadvantageous position having regard to the award itself and to the fact that the plaintiff had to take action for the recovery of the amounts due as found by the arbitrator. Therefore, we think Mr. Michel is right when he says that "legal costs" means nothing more than those costs which are recoverable in law. They are more than just the costs incurred by the legal profession. Thirdly, on the question of the caveat, we take particular note of the words on page 330 of Le Gros where it's quite clear that a creditor should give a debtor the opportunity of paying the amount or lodging security before seeking a caveat from the Bailiff. We are not satisfied that opportunity was properly given in this case, for whatever reason. Therefore the costs as regards the caveat are disallowed, and the matter will be referred back on this point to the Greffier. As regards the second ground of appeal, it is that the Greffier should not have allowed the plaintiff's costs for preparing the case and generally dealing with it. Now the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Lesquende Ltd v Planning and Environment Committee
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • March 13, 1996
    ...E.R. 16; (1974), 30 P. & C.R. 1; 118 Sol. Jo. 882, dicta of Lord Simon of Glaisdale considered. (12) Pajama Ltd. v. Ferpet Invs. Ltd., 1982 J.J. 137, considered. (13) R. v. Swabey (No. 2), [1973] 1 W.L.R. 182; [1973] 1 All E.R. 711; (1972), 117 Sol. Jo. 90, considered. (14) Simpson v. Inlan......
  • Planning and Environment Committee v Lesquende Ltd
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • November 1, 1996
    ...1 Q.B. 447. Jefford v. Gee, [1970] 2 Q.B. 130. Matthews v. Inland Revenue Commrs., [1914] 3 K.B. 192. Pajama Ltd. v. Ferpet Invs. Ltd., 1982 J.J. 137. Public Trustee v. Pearlberg, [1940] 2 K.B. 1. R. v. Swabey (No. 2), [1973] 1 All E.R. 711. Rattan Singh v. Income Tax Commr., [1967] 1 All E......

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