BW LEGAL SERVICES LTD GOT IT WRONG ON THE MEANING OF “COSTS IN THE CASE”

In the dynamic world of legal confrontations, a win goes beyond simply settling a dispute. It exemplifies careful planning, unwavering commitment, and the skill to navigate the intricate pathways of jurisprudence. This brilliance shone when Mr. Jackson Yamba, representing Lawrence and Associates Solicitors, squared off against Napier Parking Limited over factual and cost-related concerns, with the latter having the backing of the BW Legal Services Limited.

While lawyers are often perceived as omniscient, BW Legal Services Ltd appeared to misconstrue the term "costs in the case" in this context.

Central to this contention was an unpaid parking ticket. The driver of our client’s vehicle was handed a parking charge notice for being stationary in a car park managed by Napier Parking Limited. The evidence provided by the Claimant showed the vehicle was stationnary for for 0.53 seconds, but they alleged, without concrete evidence, that it had been observed for 9 minutes.

Given the slim chances of the claim's success, we recommended our client to instruct our associated Solicitors, Lawrence and Associates, for a strike out and summary judgment’s application. Although this move was not immediately successful, the Court contemplated the emergence of more evidence at the final hearing. Costs were awarded in the case.

At final hearing, the claim was dismissed and Napier Parking Limited was ordered to pay client’s costs of £569.86 in costs. Unhappy with this outcome, BW Legal Services Limited lodged an appeal, arguing that there was no basis for the award since there was no unreasonable conduct from our client.

Mr. Yamba's rebuttal was firm and persuasive. Citing Practice Direction 44, he clarified the true essence of 'costs in the case'. With Mr. Yamba's insightful arguments, the Court affirmed that 'costs in the case' inherently means the triumphant side, upon the case's close, should receive costs covering the entire litigation.