Harrison - Did they win ?

[mystery1]

I thought the Harrisons lost http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

Harrison and Another

Appellant

1. I would dismiss the appeal.
2. I agree.
3. I also agree.

However, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2013/B5.html

(1) ANDREW HARRISON (2) ELAINE HARRISON	Appellants
	-and-
	BLACK HORSE LTD	Respondent The Appellants are entitled to a payment on account in the sum of £150,000. The sum shall be paid by the Respondent to the Appellants' solicitors by 4 pm on 28th March 2013.

So has something changed that i missed ?

Anyone know or point out where i'm wrong ?

M1

[CleverClogs]

Re: Harrison - Did they win ?

Anyone know or point out where i'm wrong ?

Wrong Harrison case?

[mystery1]

Re: Harrison - Did they win ?

The 1st link in my post links to the same defendants http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/3152.html as the 2nd link in my post

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Harrison - Did they win ?

http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw.a...medium=twitter


Harrison & Anor v Black Horse Ltd [2013] EWHC B5 (Costs) - 07/03/13

Location: Case TypesCosts & Damages
Posted by: Kate Manning	28/05/2013 3:54 PM
Application for an order for payment on account of costs under CPR 44.3(8) based on a consent order made in the Supreme Court. Application opposed on the ground that the Senior Courts Costs Office had no jurisdiction: costs were ordered to be paid by the Supreme Court, to which the CPRs do not apply. Held: The CPRs apply to orders where the Supreme Court is in effect exercising the jurisdiction of the courts below, such as by reversing the orders of those courts as to require the respondent to pay the appellants' costs (as in the present case). As such, the CPRs applied to the orders and to the detailed assessment of costs made under those orders, and the Senior Courts Costs Office had jurisdiction to make the order sought under CPR 44.3(8). Obiter: That each stage of the proceedings, where the appellants lost, were governed by a separate conditional fee agreement did not mean that no costs could be recovered in respect of those proceedings. The effect of the consent order in the Supreme Court was that the appellants won at each stage because their claim for damages, relief and repayment of premiums paid was decided in their favour.
Court: High Court (England and Wales)
Reads to me that the PPI case was won by the Harrisons but the other published cases indicate they lost. Seems it was ultimately agreed by consent that they won after losing all the way. Strange. M1