It was just and reasonable to vary a final costs order where there had been a material change in circumstances and the court had been misled as to the correct financial position of a party since the making of a judgment and subsequent costs order, and where it had become apparent that another party, against whom no costs order had been made but who had controlled the litigation on behalf of the party ordered to pay the costs, had personally benefited from the litigation, despite that benefit not ...
|
The court was not persuaded that the combination of difficulties in the case were such that a claimant continuing with its claim was so unreasonable that costs should be awarded on indemnity basis.
|
Where the claimants had accepted an offer of £38,000 in settlement of proceedings in which they had originally claimed damages of £3.75 million, it could not be said that the recovery of 10 per cent of their original claim amounted to a significant win, and therefore it was appropriate, under CPR r.44.3(2), to make no order as to costs.
|
Enforceability of CFA – Adequacy of BTE enquiries. Conditional fee agreements made between the claimant and his solicitors were enforceable and complied with the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 as the solicitors had made adequate enquiries as to the existence of before-the-event insurance policies that might have been held by the claimant and had sufficiently advised him.
|
In the circumstances it was not appropriate to grant a third party costs order against persons who had provided the funds necessary to annul the claimant's bankruptcy, thereby enabling the claimant to bring proceedings against the defendant, and who had provided the claimant with a loan. The loan had not been made in order to fund the litigation, rather it was payment for obtaining an option over the claimant's property.
|
A party who had an after-the-event insurance policy with staged premiums should have informed its opponent of that fact and should have set out the trigger moments when the second or later stages would be reached.
|
The trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in directing a Sanderson order against the unsuccessful party who, in defending the claim, had sought to blame the claimant's employer.
|
In the circumstances, where a respondent had misrepresented to the court that all the parties to proceedings had agreed to an adjournment, the judge's exercise of discretion when making no order as to costs was seriously flawed and there had been no reason to deprive an appellant of her costs.
|
As the claimants had shown that there was a real risk that any judgments made in their favour would not be satisfied, freezing orders in varying amounts were made against the defendant.
|
The judge had been right to join an individual to the proceedings and make him jointly and severally liable for the costs of the successful defendants where he had controlled the proceedings brought by the claimant company, funded those proceedings and would have benefited from them if they had been successful.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |