Gimex International Groupe Import Export v The Chill Bag Company Ltd and others [2012] EWPCC 34, [2012] All ER (D) 117 (Sep)
The words of CPR 45.42(1) were clear. The court would not order a party to pay total cost of more than the capped sum. Accordingly, a litigant in the Patents County Court had the security of knowing that subject to certain exceptions, the costs cap would protect their exposure to the other party’s costs. The effect of that decision on the meaning of CPR 45.42(1) might mean that in a multi-party case, the costs recovered by a winning defendant might be reduced. There were all kinds of different possible scenarios which might arise. One aspect of the case was that the presence of two separately represented groups of defendants did not increase the claimant’s costs to any significant extent over and above those which would have been incurred against a single defendant (or single set of defendants represented together). But in future there might be different cases, such as where two sets of defendants wished to run very different defences, or if one camp of defendants
