The States Employment Board v Amar Alwitry

JurisdictionJersey
CourtCourt of Appeal
JudgeCrow JA
Judgment Date22 July 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] JCA 140
Date22 July 2019

[2019] JCA 140

Court of Appeal

Before:

Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, President

Jonathan Crow, Q.C.

Lord Anderson of Ipswich, K.B.E. Q.C.

Between
The States Employment Board
Appellant
and
Amar Alwitry
Respondent

M. Temple Esq., Solicitor General, for the Appellant.

Advocate S. M. J. Chiddicks for the Respondent

Authorities

States Employment Board v Alwitry [2019] JCA 134.

Appeal — judgment on costs

JUDGMENT ON COSTS
Crow JA

This is the judgment of the court.

INTRODUCTION
1

On 10 July 2019 we handed down judgment in this matter States Employment Board v Alwitry [2019] JCA 134 (“ the main judgment”). The Appeal was dismissed, as was the Respondent's Notice. This is the judgment of the court on costs. Only two issues arise: (i) whether a discount should be applied to the Respondent's costs of the appeal, and (if so) how much, and (ii) whether an interim payment on account of costs should be made, and (if so) how much.

2

As to the first issue, the Appellant accepts that it must pay the costs of the appeal on the standard basis but, rather than seeking a reciprocal order for its own costs of the Respondent's Notice, it submits that a discount of 25% should be applied to the Respondent's costs of the Appeal in order to reflect the fact that the Respondent's Notice was dismissed. That is resisted by the Respondent who seeks all his costs, alternatively a discount of only 10%.

3

In our judgment, it is just and expedient to make a single discounted costs order in favour of the Respondent in respect of the costs of the whole process in this court (i.e. awarding him a percentage of his costs of both the Appeal and of the Respondent's Notice on the standard basis). This approach reflects the fact that (i) overall, the Respondent was clearly the winner, but (ii) the Respondent's Notice raised entirely distinct issues which were not responsive to the issues raised in the Appeal; (iii) substantial written and oral argument was addressed separately by both parties to the Respondent's Notice, including the citation of additional authorities; (iv) save in one limited respect in relation to one of the five grounds in the Respondent's Notice (see §96 of the main judgment), it was wholly unsuccessful; (v) the fact that we were able to dispose of the Respondent's Notice in only eight paragraphs occupying only two pages of the main judgment does not reflect the amount of cost incurred by the parties in dealing...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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