Application for costs against non-parties: Where an application for costs to be paid by non-parties was not made until after judgment had been given, and without prior notice, it was held that the Court did not have sufficient evidence of the allegations made against the non-parties and it would have been a denial of the fundamental right of the non-parties to be heard on such serious allegations if the Court were to decide the issues summarily.
|
Costs “incidental to” subsequent proceedings: The Court held that costs which the Defendant had incurred at the pre-action protocol stage in successfully persuading the Claimant to abandon a claim could not be considered costs "incidental to" any subsequent proceedings, save in exceptional circumstances which gave rise to some sort of unreasonable conduct. Accordingly, these costs were not recoverable under s.51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
|
Costs upon acceptance of Part 36 payment-in as satisfaction of part of claim: Where the claimant had accepted a payment-in as satisfaction for part of a claim that was substantially less than the original claim, and then abandoned the remaining claim, the court ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs of the claim, save for that part of the claim which related to the payment -n, the costs of which the defendant was order to pay pursuant to CPR Part 27
|
Solicitors’ costs where not on record:Where no solicitors had been named on the court record as representing the successful party, the deputy master had been entitled to find on the evidence that the party had nevertheless been advised by a solicitor and that the costs of those services should be allowed.
|
An appeal against an award of costs to a litigant in person was dismissed. Although no solicitor appeared on the record there was evidence to show that the litigant had received legal advice and assistance in preparation of his case. There was also evidence to show that the Claimant had paid for these services. In the circumstances their was no grounds for arguing that such an award of costs would be in breach the indemnity principle.
|
Liability of professional funder: A professional funder, who had financed part of a claimant's costs of litigation in a manner which facilitated access to justice and which was not otherwise objectionable, should be potentially liable for the costs of the opposing party only to the extent of the funding provided.
|
Publicly-funded party: Where a litigant had been publicly funded for part but not all of the proceedings, and the party entitled to recover costs against him had failed to seek a detailed assessment in time to satisfy the provisions in relation to the costs incurred during the period in which the litigant had been publicly funded, the receiving party was still entitled to recover her costs for the period in which public funding had not applied.
|
A success fee of 100% entered into in the instant case was rejected and an uplift of 50% substituted. It was held that where a case had a better than evens prospect of success the appropriate uplift would be between 33% -50%. The Claimant’s submission that costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis was rejected. It was not unreasonable for the parties to delay settlement of the claim until the date of trial. It was unclear how liability would be apportioned between the two defendants. The d ...
|
Percentage uplift under CFA: In a personal injury claim, where the claimants had sustained serious injuries and liability was uncertain, it was held that the appropriate percentage uplift under a conditional fee agreement was 50 per cent. This figure reflected the very significant element of risk which existed at the time when the conditional fee agreement was entered into.
|
This case sounds a cautionary note to liquidators who issue proceedings for and on behalf of a company where they were open to being held liable for the Defendant’s costs when proceedings were dis-continued. In the instant case the liquidators were ordered to pay the costs of the third defendant despite his unreasonable conduct. A reduction of 40% was made to the third defendant’s costs to reflect the fact the delay in settlement caused by his unreasonable conduct.
|
| 1 2 3 |