No order as to costs where insufficient material to decide apportionment on the basis of the parties’ success on issues in dispute: Although costs ought to have been apportioned to reflect the appellant's success on a number of the allegations made in the respondent's defence and counterclaim, it had not been possible for the court to reach a view as to an appropriate amount to apportion since there was inadequate material upon which to form such a view. Accordingly, it was held that the appropr ...
|
Appropriateness of no order as to costs: Following a successful personal injury claim, the judge’s decision that there should be no order as to costs, on the basis that the claimant’s case had materially changed, was held to be wrong. There had been no material change in the case. The main issue had always been whether or not the claimant’s injury resulted from a breach of the defendant’s statutory obligations and/or negligence.
|
Reasonableness of CFA success fee for detailed assessment: When called upon to assess the reasonableness of a success fee, the court must have regard to the facts and circumstances as they reasonably appeared to the solicitor at the time that the CFA was entered into, and not the facts and circumstances viewed with the benefit of hindsight. The court did not have the power under para.11.8(2) of the Costs Practice Direction to direct that a success fee in a CFA was recoverable at different rates ...
|
Costs order following failure to beat Part 36 Payment into Court: Where the appellant had failed to beat the respondent’s payment into court, the judge was fully entitled in the circumstances of the case to make an order that the appellant should only receive 25% of his costs up to the date when the offer was made.
|
The appellants appealed against an order for costs in favour of the Respondents and the judge’s refusal to treat their without prejudice offer for costs as having the same effect as a Part 36 offer. It was held that the undertaking to pay costs only covered disclosure as a result of the order of 23rd July or compliance with that order. The court also found that Part 36 could only be taken to apply to offers falling within it. This offer was difficult to evaluate and the respondents could not be ...
|
The court refused to grant the costs capping order sought by the Claimant (W). The court found that the requirements for granting a costs capping order had not been met. Firstly, the Claimant had a private interest in the claim (in that W sought compensation). Secondly, the costs in this claim had not spiralled out of control and could be reduced when assessed after the conclusion of the claim.
|
Appropriateness of Costs Capping Order: The court held that it was not appropriate to grant a costs capping order in light of the fact that the applicant members of the Railtrack Private Shareholders Action Group had a private interest in the outcome of their proceedings against the Secretary of State for Transport.
|
A non-party director was unsuccessful in his appeal against a costs order made against him. The court found that he was the driving force behind the litigation (the ‘real party’) in a claim which had been issued in the company’s name. The court found that the claim had been issued for the appellant’s own benefit and the costs of the litigation had been caused by his dishonesty and impropriety.
|
Appeal of Costs Order: An appeal against a costs order was dismissed, where both the application seeking permission to appeal and the grounds of the submissions heard at the substantive hearing founded upon a misconception that the appellants had not been awarded the costs of a specific issue. Counsel were reminded that they have a duty on ex parte applications to bring all relevant matters to the attention of the court, whether in support of their applications or not.
|
The appellant (C ) sought an order for costs against the Inland Revenue under the Special Commissioner (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994 reg. 21. C had been informed that a number of payments made for legal fees fell to be treated as benefits and that Class 1 National insurance contributions did not arise on most benefits. C was then issued with a decision notice for a class 1 national insurance contribution charge and a further decision notice with no explanation for the charge. C c ...
|
| 1 2 |