KA-2023-000225 - [2025] EWHC 2112 (KB)
Fecha: 07-Ago-2025
The Application for a Stay
The Application for a Stay
Submissions of the Respondent
The Respondent acknowledges that the consequence of my Judgment is that I will order Part 18 replies within a reasonable timeframe, suggesting 21 days is appropriate. However, the Respondent seeks a stay in relation to any order for provision of the replies pending either refusal of permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal or dismissal of the Respondent’s appeal if permission is granted. Since this would be a second appeal, the Respondent has applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal by way of an Appellant’s Notice dated 15 July 2025. The Respondent asserts that this prospective appeal satisfies the test for a second appeal under CPR 52.7 and is for “clarification of the state and application of the law”, which is of importance to the practice of costs law.
The Respondent argues that I possess the power to make such an order, asserting that CPR 52.16(a) indicates a parallel jurisdiction with the Court of Appeal for granting a stay. It characterises the test as involving an assessment of the risk of injustice or irremediable harm if a stay is not ordered (see Hammond Suddard Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2065, and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Downs [2009] EWCA Civ 257). The Respondent contends that a delay in the information would not cause the Appellant injustice or harm, noting that the request dates back to 18 July 2022, some three years ago. The Respondent suggests that the Appellant’s opposition to the stay is “unprincipled and unsupported” and “wrong as a matter of law”. The Respondent contends that absent a stay, the purpose and function of the proposed appeal would be stifled if the Respondent were ordered to provide Part 18 replies prior to the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Respondent draws a distinction between money, which can be returned, and information, which “once provided cannot be erased,” arguing that there will be “irremediable harm” if a stay is not granted, and the appeal succeeds.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Relevant Background
- Issues for Determination
- The Application for a Stay
- Submissions of the Appellant
- Conclusions on the Stay Application
- Costs General Principles
- Respondent’s Submissions on Conduct
- Appellant’s Submissions on Conduct
- Analysis and Conclusion
- Costs already ordered of the Hearing Below
- Costs – Summary Assessment
- Analysis and Conclusions
- Costs of the Hearing Below (Third Statement of Costs)
- Costs of the Appeal (First Statement of Costs)
- Post-Judgment Costs (Second Statement of Costs)
- Conclusions