A three year delay by a receiving party in bringing proceedings for detailed costs assessment was held not to have constituted a breach of the paying parties’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time pursuant to Art.6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Further, the delay had not been abusive so as to merit a sanction under CPR r.44.14. CPR Part 47 provided a mechanism for the paying parties to bring the matter to the attention of the court in order to obtain a hearing within a r ...
|
Non-party – reimbursement of costs of disclosure: A non-party was entitled to reimbursement of most of costs incurred in complying with a disclosure order, despite having misled the court on a material issue.
|
Unreasonable conduct and indemnity costs: The Defendant was ordered to pay indemnity costs to the Claimant owing to its unreasonable conduct during the litigation. The Claimant had made an application for summary judgment. This was dismissed on the basis that the defence case indicated that a trial would be justified. The Defendant then withdrew its defence. An application for indemnity costs was granted under CPR r. 44.3 (4) (a), the withdrawal of the defence constituted unreasonable behaviour ...
|
An order for costs on the indemnity basis was made when the Defendant resisted a summary judgment application but subsequently withdrew its defence. The court held that the Defendant’s conduct during the course of the litigation and the complete lack of merit in the defence pursued amounted to unreasonable behaviour and justified and award of costs on the indemnity basis.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 |