Norris J held that the claimant was entitled to an order that the defendants pay his costs upon discontinuing his claim against them, in departure from the usual costs consequences upon discontinuance pursuant to CPR r. 38.6. In circumstances where an unpredictable change in circumstances had rendered the claimant’s claim academic, Norris J exercised his discretion as to costs in the claimant’s favour and with reference to the general costs considerations as set out in CPR r.44.3.
|
Notwithstanding Wide Ambit Of Discretion Judge Had Erred In Principle In Making Of Costs Order
The Court of Appeal held that the judge had, notwithstanding the wide ambit of discretion afforded to him, erred in principle in respect of costs orders made in relation to costs that had been incurred agreeing terms of a compromise agreement which the judge determined were not a necessary part of any compromise and had thus unnecessarily prolonged litigation. The Court of Appeal, upon the respondent’s agreement, held that the judge should not have sought to impose his own view as to whether the ...
|
Solicitors Firm Liable For Non-Party Costs Order For Failure To Obtain Legal Costs Insurance
Mr. Waksman QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court), held that the respondent second interested party, a firm of solicitors, were liable for a non-party costs order arising out of unsuccessful litigation pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1978. Mr. Waksman QC found that it had been the solicitors’ responsibility to obtain legal costs insurance for its clients and it had both failed to do so and failed to inform the clients that they had no insurance and were thus exposed to the risk of advers ...
|
Master Entitled To Take Into Account Claimant’s Age And Urgency Of Case In Respect Of Reasonableness In Instructing Central London Solicitors
Tugendhat J upheld the master’s decision that it had been reasonable of the Respondent (the Claimant below) to instruct solicitors in Central London, as opposed to in Kent or outer London, to act on his behalf in respect of his claim for damages for personal injuries and loss arising out of his contact with asbestos during his employment with the MoD. Tugendhat J held that the master had been entitled to take into account the Respondent’s age, namely 82, and the urgency of the instruction in lig ...
|
Failure To Raise Point Before Trial Judge Does Not Preclude Raising Of Point Before Costs Judge
The Court of Appeal held that it would be inconsistent with CPR r.44.3 and r.44.5 and with the duty of the court to ensure that costs were reasonable and proportionate, to preclude a party from raising a point material to that question before a costs judge on a detailed assessment, because it had not been raised before the trial judge. Whilst a costs judge may be assisted in an assessment of costs by an indication from the trial judge as to the way in which the trial had been conducted, no rule ...
|
The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been entitled to award the successful defendant to an action for fraudulent misrepresentation only 65 per cent of her costs on account that she had failed on several issues at trial. Pursuant to CPR r.44.3(4)(b), the court must have regard to the extent to which a party had succeeded on part of its case. The Court of Appeal held that there was no justification for departing from such issue based approach in fraud cases.
|
Two Unsuccessful Parties Ordered To Split Costs Of Successful Party Equally As Two Actions Indistinguishable
The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge’s order that the appellant pharmaceutical company, which had unsuccessfully applied for the revocation of a patent, was jointly liable along with the other unsuccessful pharmaceutical company, for the costs of the successful party. The appellant’s action was initially separate to that of the other unsuccessful pharmaceutical company but ultimately such actions were ordered to be heard simultaneously before the same Judge. Prior to the commencement of the tria ...
|
No Order For Costs In Court Of Appeal Against Unsuccessful Respondent Where Litigation Began In Cost- Free Jurisdiction
The Court of Appeal held that whilst in the Court of Appeal it is usual for costs to follow the event, in the instant appeal, the appropriate order was no order as to costs. The Respondent individual began proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, being a cost-free jurisdiction. Although unsuccessful at first instance, the Respondent succeeded before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Appellant wished to overturn a line of EAT authority and thus the Respondent was pitched against his will to come ...
|
Unsuccessful Claimant Ordered to Pay Costs of Contribution Claims Between Defendants
Ouseley J held that where personal injury proceedings were commenced against a number of defendants and based on inter-related facts, it was foreseeable that contribution proceedings as between those defendants would follow. As in the instant case the contribution issues added only negligibly to the duration of the hearing, the costs of the contribution proceedings should be categorised as contingent on the Claimant’s success in the main action, in which he failed. Accordingly, such costs were t ...
|
Protective Costs Order Not Available in Private Litigation
The Court of Appeal held that a court could not make a protective costs order (‘PCO’) in private litigation. The Appellant’s claim was for discrimination on the grounds of religion and for harassment, following British Airway’s refusal to allow her to wear a visible cross with her uniform. The Appellant had been unsuccessful in her claim before the ET and EAT, but had been granted permission by the EAT to appeal to the Court of Appeal and sought a PCO to protect her against the real risk of havi ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |