Hawcroft v Jamieson (No 2)

The case of Hawcroft v Jamieson (No 2) involved the defendants seeking a different costs order from that indicated preliminarily in the primary judgment. The plaintiff, Hawcroft, had partially succeeded in their action but failed on a dominant issue. The defendants argued that the amount of time directed to the issue on which the plaintiff failed was significant and that the preliminary view as to costs should be disturbed. The court was required to decide whether it was appropriate to alter the preliminary costs order and what form the order for interest on costs should take, given that the unsuccessful defendants did not oppose the order for interest.

The court considered the principle that a plaintiff who partially succeeds in an action should not be penalised for their failure on a dominant issue. It examined the amount of time directed to the issue on which the plaintiff failed and the overall success of the plaintiff. The court noted that the plaintiff had been successful in obtaining other relief sought and that the amount of time directed to the failed issue was significant. However, the court also recognised that the preliminary view as to costs should not be easily disturbed. After weighing these considerations, the court concluded that it was not appropriate to alter the preliminary view as to costs but did make adjustments to the order for interest on costs to account for the plaintiff’s mixed success.

The court determined that the order for interest on costs should reflect the reduced percentage of costs payable due to the plaintiff’s partial success. The court made a specific order for interest on the costs, taking into account the mixed success of the plaintiff and the reduced percentage of costs payable. This adjustment ensured that the order for interest on costs was fair and reflected the outcome of the case accurately.

The final orders of the court included the adjustment to the order for interest on costs to account for the plaintiff’s mixed success. The court did not alter the preliminary view as to costs but made a specific order for interest on the costs, reflecting the reduced percentage of costs payable due to the plaintiff’s partial success.