Martin & Anor v Kogan & Ors
Decision date: 13 December 2017
Neutral citation: [2017] EWHC 3266 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This judgment determines costs issues after a trial finding the First Claimant authored the Screenplay and no infringement by Claimants. The court decided how Part 36 offers interact with IPEC capped costs: ordinarily raising each stage cap by 25% and the overall cap to £62,500 under r.36.17(4)(b), awarding the additional r.36.17(4)(d) sum outside the caps, and treating Part 20 claims as attracting their own separate IPEC caps. Specific costs awards were made: Ms Kogan to pay Claimants £50,790 plus interest and the Part 20 Defendants £25,820 plus interest.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where rule 36.17(4)(b) applies in IPEC, the court will ordinarily lift each stage cap by 25% and increase the overall cap to £62,500, subject to judicial discretion to avoid injustice; any additional payment under r.36.17(4)(d) is awarded outside the IPEC costs caps; and a Part 20 claim that has its own claim form is treated as a separate claim for rule 45.31 purposes, attracting separate stage and overall caps.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The court indicated it is appropriate to take guidance from the Jackson Supplemental Report and the capped costs pilot when reconciling Part 36 with capped regimes, and that Part 36 should be applied in a measured way in IPEC to preserve the policy balance and to avoid unfair prejudice to defendants; parties (including Part 20 defendants) have a strong obligation to minimise duplication and costs, for example by sharing counsel where appropriate.