Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
It is not disputed that costs were in the discretion of the trial judge who knew the case better than anyone having listened to 7 days of evidence and legal argument. In order to interfere with his wide remit on this aspect of the litigation this court would have to be satisfied that he went wrong in principle or that for some other reason he was plainly wrong, for example in not taking any account of a factor relevant to the exercise of his judicial discretion.
In my view that the Thales counterclaim was hopeless is clear both from the trial documents and what the judge said about it in his judgment.
In response to Mr. Peakman’s request for the date upon which Thales became aware of Mr. Peakman’s defective work, it was said that:
“Thales was not made aware of the defective work of the Claimant. Thales was simply aware of the delay in completing the work.”
In response to the request for details of the contracts lost by Linbrooke as a result of Mr. Peakman’s defective work, it was said that:
Auto-extracted from The National Archives. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2026] EWCA Civ 31
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.