A judge's award of costs based on a Claimant's Part 36 offer was illegitimate as the offer had been withdrawn the Court could rely on the consequences of a previous unwithdrawn Part 36 offer.It was agreed between the parties that the judge's award of costs based on the second Part 36 offer was technically illegitimate as that offer had been withdrawn. The question was whether the award could or properly should be translated into Part 36 costs consequences under the surviving first offer or under ...
|
Low value RTA claim settled under the terms of a Part 36 offer, the costs were to be assessed under CPR 45 Part II rather than on the standard basis.The appellants, who had been claimants in low-value road traffic accident claims, appealed against decisions to award costs in accordance with Part 45 Part II rather than on the standard basis. In both cases, the Claimants had accepted Part 36 offers of sums totalling less than £10,000 made by the Defendants before the claims had been issued. The Co ...
|
There was a power under the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.51 to determine by whom the costs of litigation should be paid. Such an order could be extended to non-parties, such as solicitors, in appropriate circumstances. What was required was evidence to show that the solicitor had gone beyond the scope of a solicitor's ordinary role and had acted as a funder of litigation. A solicitor would become a funder if he paid out sums on the basis that they would be recovered from the other side in the event ...
|
A success fee of 100% was unreasonable where judgement had already been entered as the main risks to the litigation had gone. Non-recovery of charges would only have arisen if the C rejected a Part 36 offer and subsequently failed to beat that offer. The Master had originally decided that as the C was litigating in a risk free environment a success fee of 20% as opposed to 100% was appropriate following the C's acceptance of the D's Part 36 some 3 weeks before trial. There mere fact that a 2 sta ...
|
When considering whether to make an award for indemnity costs, it was necessary to consider whether a party's conduct was such that it should attract the court's censure. The Respondent had not made a misleading statement and it was not game playing. It had made a striking out application which was not hopeless, and though no reason was given for its abandonment the application was not improper and it was supported by a witness statement. It was held that mere abandonment should not give rise to ...
|
Following findings of contempt against two family members of a Claimant in which the Claimant's daughter was 6 months imprisonment suspended for 12 months and 3 months imprisonment for the Claimant's husband suspended for 12 months, the Court ordered the relatives to pay 70% of the Defendant insurer's costs. The case against a third family member failed entirely so she was entitled to her costs of the action. The Defendant's insurer's costs were reduced first to take into account the lack of suc ...
|
The court was required to determine costs following settlement between the Claimant and the Defendants. Following a determination by the American courts, the Claimant sought payment of money. The Claimant demanded payment within four days. The Defendants initially disputed that it owed any monies but later agreed that they had no defence to the Claimant's claim and that they were content to submit to the court's judgment in the sum claimed and interest. However, costs remained in dispute. The De ...
|
The applicant applied to correct a judgment Order so as to reduce the sum awarded to the respondent. After the Order had been made the applicants solicitors wrote to the respondent's solicitors informing them that the Order failed to take account of payments previously made such that the sum fell to be reduced which was strongly contested by the respondent. The instant application only sought to correct part of the court's Order. The slip rule could not be used to enable the court to have second ...
|
The Claimant, who was a litigant in person applied for costs against her landlord in respect of her time preparing an appeal against an award of damages for breach of a repairing covenant. The Claimant had sought costs of over £15,000 for her time and disbursements. The Court held the amount of costs claimed was unjustifiable and disproportionate. Considerations of fairness and proportionality in CPR r44.3 required that the she should only be compensated for the part of her effort referable to t ...
|
The pursuers were the Scottish Ministers’ Civil Recovery Unit. The defender was a suspected heroin dealer who had cash seized from his house during a police search under s.23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1974. The pursuers sought to have the money forfeitured under the Proceeds of Crime Act. However, before the case proceeded to proof the pursuers moved to have the action dismissed due to lack of evidence with no expenses due to or by either party. The defender agreed to the dismissa ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |