In the latest round of the legal battle between Agents’ Mutual and Gascoigne Halman, the Judge has approved the latter’s cost budget.
This is the amount that the Connells’ owned firm is likely to be able to claim in the event that it wins.
Last month, in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Mr Justice Roth did not approve Gascoigne Halman’s cost budget of £2.8m – which was some £1m more than Agents’ Mutual has budgeted.
Altogether total costs approved for Gascoigne Halman were reduced to £2.2m.
On Friday last week, in a costs management order, Agents’ Mutual’s cost budget was approved, and Gascoigne Halman’s budget approved subject to the revisions made last month.
The Judge made no order for costs, but said that there would be liberty for either side to apply.
The case is set to come to court in February.
Comments (2)
So is this:
1. AM -v- Gascoigne Halman (still an Independent company)
2. AM -v- Gascoigne Halman (in a period of acquisition by Connells but the deal not yet complete)
3. AM -v- Gascoigne Halman (A company who is owned by Connells)
Does anyone know which of the above is accurate?
None of the above
4. AM -v- anyone other than the data harvesters and distributors is a waste of time, money and resource.