The natural and ordinary meaning of the Collective Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 reg.5(1) was that there had to be a provision in a collective conditional fee agreement providing for a success fee that complied with the specification set out in the regulation, but it did not additionally require the performance of the prescribed condition.
|
Issue-based Costs Order. Where a guarantor had succeeded in setting aside a guarantee given to a bank but had fought the case on numerous distinct bases on which he had lost, one of which was an improper allegation of fraud, a judge had been entitled to depart from the normal rule that the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party's costs and make an issue-based split costs order.
|
No jurisdiction to make percentage reduction of assessed costs. A costs judge did not have jurisdiction to make a percentage reduction of the assessed costs before embarking on a detailed assessment.
|
Bill of Costs considered globally disproportionate. In the circumstances, a costs bill of £54,000 in relation to a road traffic claim was globally disproportionate, particularly where the claim was settled for only £10,000 and the case was not novel or complex demanding particular special skills. The equivalent to the reasonable costs of a one-day liability trial would be allowed in respect of the trial costs because liability issues could have been disposed of in a day.
|
Claimant’s liability for costs incurred by Defendant before permission to apply for JR. In the context of a costs order in judicial review proceedings, which stated that the unsuccessful claimant was to pay "75 per cent of the costs of this claim not to include costs of the permission hearing...", it had been open to the judge in a detailed assessment hearing to order that the claimant was liable for 75 per cent of the costs reasonably incurred by the defendant prior to the grant of permission ...
|
Third Party Costs Order. A judge was right to make a third party costs order against a director of a company that had had a claim for unpaid fees dismissed and had judgment made against it on a counterclaim, in circumstances where the identity of the director and the company and the interests of the director and of the company were so close that it would be unjust not to make the director liable for costs.
|
While non-compliance with a rule, practice direction or court order was the only jurisdictional requirement for the exercise of the power contained in CPR r.44.14 it would usually be appropriate as a matter of discretion to consider the extent of the misconduct which had occurred in the course of the non-compliance.
|
In a case where it had been found that the successful party had been dishonest, the fact that the paying party had not sought an order from the judge reflecting that misconduct did not preclude the paying party, when it came to the assessment of costs, from referring to the finding of dishonesty when considering whether the costs incurred by the dishonest party were reasonable.
|
In the circumstances, there were no factors which justified a departure from the normal expectation, set out in Chrulew v Borm-Reid & Co 1 All ER 953 and preserved by the CPR r.47.18(1), that the party whose bill was being taxed was entitled to his costs of the taxation.
|
Where a court, despite granting permission to appeal, had made an unless order, with the effect that if security for costs was not put up by the claimant the action would be struck out before any appeal came on for hearing, the order was inappropriate. If a default judgment had been entered pursuant to the order but the claimant within a short time had come to the court with the right sum the court should be willing to consider granting relief and setting aside the default judgment.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |