Costs Capping Order – group litigation: The senior costs judge quantified the amount of a costs capping order in respect of the claimants' costs in holiday group litigation on the basis that the litigation was being used to generate excessive and unreasonable costs and that the ability of claimants with modest claims to pursue their claims under the group litigation order came with the concomitant requirement that the costs be strictly controlled.
|
A landlord was entitled to recover the costs of successful litigation against a tenant before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal when this could be implied from a proper construction of the lease. The recovery of these costs was not precluded by Schedule 12 of The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The tenant's argument that the lease did not envisage recovery of costs where costs could be recovered on conclusion of tribunal proceedings was rejected. The court found that the landlord had be ...
|
It could be legitimately inferred from the conduct of the client that he had agreed to a proposed variation by a firm of solicitors of an initial retainer, in relation to an action brought by the client against his former employers, in order to reflect a collective conditional fee agreement entered into between the client's union and the firm. Further, under the agreement, the firm at first instance was required to recover charges directly from the union rather than the client, but the agreement ...
|
A claim form served by a solicitor with defects had been properly served and was sufficient to commence proceedings for detailed assessment in-spite of the defects. It was held on appeal that the claim form was sufficient to convey the content of the claim and the appellant’s intention to have the bills assessed. This automatic statutory right ought not to be denied owing to a formal defect. The court found that this claim form had been sufficient to commence proceedings and the court could then ...
|
The appellant successfully appealed against the court's refusal to make an order for detailed assessment of bills delivered by the respondent firm of solicitors. The order sought had been refused owing to the applicant's failure to comply with the formal requirements of such an application. It was argued for the Respondent that the Appellant had failed to state the remedy sought, the legal basis under which it was claimed and had failed to sign a statement of truth. The court refused to allow re ...
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 |