Vyas & Anor v Goraya, (t/a Taj Construction Roofing)

1. This is the judgment of the court. 2. At paragraph 51 of my judgment of 9 November 2006 I stated that it seemed to be suggested in further written submissions sent to us by Mrs Vyas that the Respondent Mr Goraya is now assisted in various respects by the daughter of Mr and Mrs Vyas, Ms Kavita Vyas, who is apparently now married to Mr Goraya’s brother. When serving the Appellants’ Schedule of Costs Mrs Vyas informed us by email of 21 November 2016 that Ms Kavita Vyas is not married to Mr Goraya’s brother. We are happy to record this correction. 3. The Appellants seek recovery of their substantial costs incurred in pursuing the appeal. As is apparent from our judgment the appeal failed on every point except for the increase of the award of damages by £341.20 to reflect the purchase of some propane gas cylinders and the hire of two pieces of equipment. This is an entirely trivial recovery in the light of the amount awarded by the judge and the amount sought on appeal. The costs claimed were incurred in pursuing a wide-ranging appeal under ten heads which failed in every save this very minor respect. 4. Mr Goraya has not sought the recovery of any costs, which in his case would in any event have been restricted to his attendance at the hearing. 5. The costs of the appeal are completely disproportionate to the success achieved by the Appellants. In reality it is the Respondent who is the successful party in the appeal. In our judgment the appropriate disposition is that there shall be no order as to the costs incurred in the appeal.