Buchanan-Davies v Broadbent [No 2]

The case of Buchanan-Davies v Broadbent [No 2] involved the applicant seeking an order for indemnity costs following their successful application to extend the time to commence proceedings for personal injury damages. The applicant, Buchanan-Davies, sought an indemnity costs order for a fixed amount, arguing that Broadbent's conduct warranted such an award. The legal issues before the court were whether Buchanan-Davies was entitled to indemnity costs and, if so, whether the quantum of those costs should be fixed or assessed.

The court considered the conduct of the parties and the principles governing indemnity costs, which typically apply in cases involving vexatious, oppressive, or frivolous litigation. The court found that Broadbent's conduct did not reach the threshold required for an indemnity costs order. The court held that the applicant's application to extend time was not vexatious or oppressive, and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to indemnity costs. The court further determined that the quantum of costs should be assessed rather than fixed, given the nature of the application and the conduct of the parties.

As a result of the court's decision, the order was made that Broadbent pay Buchanan-Davies' costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed. This decision underscores the stringent criteria necessary for an indemnity costs order, highlighting that such orders are reserved for cases where the opposing party's conduct is egregious.