Gascoigne Halman has been ordered to make an interim costs payment of £1.24m within 14 days to Agents’ Mutual, but the contract issue of the dispute has been stayed pending an application for appeal.
Chairman The Honourable Mr Justice Marcus Smith said the agent must make an interim, on account, payment of costs to Agents’ Mutual as a consequence of the CAT judgment having been in favour of Agents’ Mutual, and said a full payment would be subject to a detailed assessment in “due course.”
This figure would be submitted and considered by a costs judge.
Separately, Agents’ Mutual will also be refunded the funds and further fortification of funds that were paid into the court by Agents’ Mutual last year for the eventuality that the CAT judgment had been in favour of Gascoigne Halman
Gascoigne Halman agreed to make the payment in 14 days. The agent had also argued that the rest of the case at the high court should be stayed pending any application for appeal.
Mr Justice Smith agreed with this and ruled the non-competition proceedings would be stayed pending any appeal.
Ouch!
Not quite the Pyrrhic victory now is it!
Ha ha
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The loss of 20% of the initial project time means that although they have won case and costs the cost is far higher. That’s pyrrhic and that was obviously the intention.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Emphasis on the “not quite” required as this is better than the alternative.
Intentional damage indeed and another display of their true colours in addition to purple.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Lawyers are the only people that win.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Wonder who is going to pay the £1.24 million? That’s a lot of money for a small chain of agents isn’t it? Guess big daddy owner or his mates might have to weigh in!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Plus their own £1.8m legal fee.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
£1.24 million is nothing compared to what it has cost OTM is progress!!! They know full well even if it reached appeal they would not win – its just another tactic stop OTM growing!!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It is not a forgone conclusion that an appeal will be allowed. Unless they can come up with good reason an application can be refused by the appeal court. They tried it on, hoping AM would fold under the pressure before it went near the court? but with the risk that if they lost they would end up with costs they cannot afford. They gambled and lost. The question is who is going to fund the cost? Can’t be Z or they could end up in the dock and put an end to any appeal? That leaves Connells and its shareholders in addition have to pay their £1.8m legal fees ….. ouch.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
zoopla and their best mate Iain White will pay as they probably instructed Gascoigne Halman in the first place to try and stop OTM. Any high street agent who loves PBs should keep ploughing money into Zoopla. Idiots!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register