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 ...
|
Good Arguable Case for Third Party Costs Order Against Claimant’s Parents Funding Litigation
Blake J held that the Defendant school was entitled to an ancillary order as to disclosure in its application for a third party costs order against the Claimant’s parents, following the discontinuance of the Claimant’s claim for substantial damages for failure of the Defendant, his former school, to take measures to prevent him from being bullied. Notwithstanding that this was a case of family funding, Blake J considered that there was merit in the Defendant’s argument that this was not a case o ...
|
Blair J held that a Claimant was not entitled to recover a fee he had paid to a claims handling company that, pursuant to a conditional fee agreement, had successfully handled his claim for vibration white finger injuries. There was no legal justification for implying a contractual term that the company had to disclose to the Claimant that it would also receive a fee under a government scheme if the claim was successful. As the Claimant only had to pay a capped fee in the event that he was succe ...
|
The Law Society should take in to account the means of a solicitor in approaching sanctions and costs and that where exceptional poverty was present a commensurate reduction in the fine and costs order which was proportionate to the breaches of the code and took in to account the prospect of future earnings was appropriate.
|
Costs Apportionment In Line With Liability Upheld: The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had been entitled to award costs in accordance with his finding of a 65:35 split on liability as, having regard to the Defendant’s cross-claim, he had been correct to decide that justice was best served by him doing so. Although the cross-claim was “by the wayside” and not a formally pleaded Counterclaim, and it was not mentioned by the judge when making the Order, it was clear that liability in the ...
|
Court Erred in Ordering Claimant to Pay Security For Costs: The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had erred in ordering the Claimant to pay security for costs in respect of its claim. Although the precondition to make such an order, that the Claimant had no assets, had been satisfied, the Court should have taken into account other factors that pointed away from making such an order. The Claimant had a bona fide claim, on the evidence before the Court one side or the other was bound to win ...
|
Defendant Should Have Been Awarded Costs Where Claimant Abandoned Claims at the Court Doors:-The Court of Appeal held that a judge had been incorrect to make no order as to costs in circumstances where a case settled on the day of trial with the Claimant abandoning most of his claims. In the circumstances, costs should have followed the event, and the judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion by not doing so. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs on the standard basis; it ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |