Apportionment of costs liability. In circumstances where costs had been incurred for two purposes, they had to be apportioned broadly between each of the purposes.
|
Both parties successful – No Order as to costs. In the circumstances, as both parties to an action could be regarded as having been successful, the court would make no order as to costs.
|
Costs Order not made as a result of unwillingness to negotiate – Refusal not demonstrated to be unreasonable. A costs order made by the court did not reflect a party's refusal to negotiate or enter into mediation prior to trial, as it had not been demonstrated that the party's position as to mediation and negotiation was unreasonable.
|
The judge had been wrong to order an assessment of costs on an indemnity basis where one of the parties had not been able to make representations about evidence and where the action had commenced 40 years earlier.
|
When awarding costs the judge had erred in not granting an adjournment to enable further evidence to be brought that could have helped in the assessment of those costs.
|
Pre-CPR Settlement Order to be taken into account. An offer to settle made prior to the coming into force of the CPR and withdrawn some time before the trial should still have been taken into account by the judge when considering an order for costs.
|
Indemnity Costs and Delay. The claimant, in a successful action that should have been commenced in the county court, was not prohibited on the grounds of jurisdiction from recovering the costs he ordinarily would have been awarded, where the actions of the defendant had caused delay in the proceedings and the judge had decided that, to avoid further delay, the case should be heard in the High Court rather than the county court.
|
Abuse of Process – Matters raised in Points of Dispute. It was an abuse of process for a solicitor's client to seek to raise before the costs judge, by way of the points of dispute to the bill of costs on a detailed assessment, matters that could, and should, have been litigated before the court after the exchange of the pleadings in the pre-action protocol, but that had not been pursued after the protocol had run its course.
|
Costs & Part 36 Offers. Where a claimant had accepted a Part 36 payment in circumstances such that the provisions of CPR r.44.12(1)(b) operated, a deputy master did not have jurisdiction to deprive the claimant of a mandatory costs order in its favour.
|
Costs & Part 36 Offers. When dealing with costs the judge had erred in principle when ruling that a Calderbank offer made by the defendant either had full effect or no effect at all and, as a result, the costs order was manifestly unjust to the defendant who had made a clear offer substantially exceeding the amount that the claimant recovered.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |