Costs

Actavis UK Ltd v. Eli Lilly & Co Ltd, CA, 13/1/10

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:54:44 GMT

Two Unsuccessful Parties Ordered To Split Costs Of Successful Party Equally As Two Actions Indistinguishable

The Governing Body of St Albans Girls’ School & Anor v. Neary, CA, (20 November 2009)

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:38:43 GMT

No Order For Costs In Court Of Appeal Against Unsuccessful Respondent Where Litigation Began In Cost- Free Jurisdiction

Green v. Sunset & Vine Productions Ltd & Ors, QBD, (4 November 2009)

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:37:49 GMT

Unsuccessful Claimant Ordered to Pay Costs of Contribution Claims Between Defendants

Eweida v British Airways Plc [2009] EWCA Civ 1025 (15 October 2009)

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:27:43 GMT

Protective Costs Order Not Available in Private Litigation

Thomson v Berkhamsted Collegiate School [2009] EWHC 2374 (QB) (02 October 2009)

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:26:18 GMT

Good Arguable Case for Third Party Costs Order Against Claimant’s Parents Funding Litigation

Strydom v. Venside Ltd, QBD, (18 August 2009)

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:06:00 GMT

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 successful and in circumstances where he was seeking union representation where he was no longer paying those union fees, the contract did not amount to an unconscionable bargain such as to justify being setting aside.

D’Souza v The Law Society (DC) (27 July 2009)

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:54:00 GMT

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.

Parkes v Martin [2009] EWCA Civ 883 (09 July 2009)

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:55:09 GMT

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 cross-claim was a relevant consideration. Furthermore, the Claimant had understood the Defendant’s arguments and had had ample opportunity to make submissions to the contrary but had declined to do so.

Spy Academy v. Sakar International Inc, CA, (23 July 2009)

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:59:00 GMT

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 and it had to be said that the Claimant had a perfectly reasonable chance of success. The Application had been made very late in the proceedings, there was no realistic chance that the Claimant would raise the security and it was arguable that the Claimant’s impecuniosity was as a result of the Defendant’s failure to honour an agreement.

Hannan & Anor v Maxton [2009] EWCA Civ 773 (08 June 2009)

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:14:24 GMT

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 was not appropriate that the costs should have been awarded on the indemnity basis as the Claimant had made some earlier concessions and accordingly the Defendant was partly at fault.

Blackmore v. Cummings, CA, 10/6/09

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:12:30 GMT

No Presumption That a Party Is Entitled to an Interim Payment on Account of Costs:- The Court of Appeal held that the notion that a party should not be kept from money that he had become entitled to by virtue of a costs order did not have the status of a legal presumption. A party’s entitlement to the benefit of such an order was simply another factor to be considered in the exercise of a judge’s wide discretion under CPR 44.3 and CPR 47.15. In the instant case, the district judge had fallen into error by starting from the presumption that the Claimant was entitled to an interim payment in his favour.

Mastercigars Direct Ltd. v Withers Llp [2009] EWHC 993 (Ch) (22 April 2009)

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Costs Judge Gave Inadequate Reasons For Selecting 20% Margin Above Costs Estimate: Morgan J. held that a costs judge had given inadequate reasons for selecting a 20% margin over a costs estimate as the limit on the costs recoverable in a situation where he had been required to determine upon detailed assessment the reliance that had been placed on that estimate. The costs judge had failed to address two relevant considerations: (i) what level of costs would have caused the client to change solicitors; and (ii) at what date between the estimate and the trial would they have effected that change. Although it was not necessary for the client to prove a detriment on the balance of probabilities, the costs judge needed to identify and explain the factors that he did take into account. The ultimate question was what sum it was reasonable for the client to pay, in light of the estimate and any other relevant matter.

Birmingham City Council v Forde [2009] EWHC 12 (QB) (13 January 2009)

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:46:00 GMT

Retrospective CFA Held to Not Be Contrary to Public Policy:

Christopher Clarke J. held that there was no prohibition on CFAs being retrospective and no reason per se why a retrospective success fee was contrary to public policy. The Court had the ability to disallow or reduce retrospective fees that were unreasonable. If that were wrong then there was no reason why the Court could not delete the success fee leaving the obligation to pay unaffected. There was nothing in the statutory provisions requiring a retrospective CFA to comply with the notice requirements in Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Arrangements Regulations 2000.

Roach v. Home Office, QBD, (25 February 2009)

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:56:00 GMT

Costs of Attending Inquest Capable of Recovery in Subsequent Civil Proceedings

Richardson Roofing v. Ballast PLC, CA, 13/2/09

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 GMT

Trial Judge Could Not Direct Costs Judge to Paragraphs in the Judgement
The Court of Appeal held that an Order given by the trial judge in which he directed the costs judge to assess costs by reference to six specified paragraphs in his judgment could not stand. As a matter of practise, it was undesirable for judges to enter into forms of order that could not stand on their own. In any event, the judge had failed to respond to an issue raised in relation to the construction of a consent order.

Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1375 (11 December 2008)

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:05:00 GMT

Solicitor Has an Interest if a Reasonable Person Thinks it Would Affect Their Advice to the Client: The Court of Appeal held that, for the purposes of Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, a solicitor had an interest if a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would think that the existence of the interest might affect the advice given by the solicitor to their client. Whilst membership of a panel of a claims management company could constitute such an interest, it would not do so in all the circumstances. In the instant case, the overriding consideration was the quality of the policy; this was why the solicitors subscribed to the scheme and recommended the policy. None of the other terms of the solicitor’s agreement with the claims management company would affect that conclusion, subject to any impact they have on the overall test of reasonableness.

Peer International Corp & Ors v Editora Musical De Cuba [2008] EWCA Civ 1260 (26 November 2008)

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Judge Entitled to Deny Successful Party Costs of Litigation: The Court of Appeal held that although it was unusual to deny a successful party the whole of its costs of a trial, in the circumstances the trial judge had not misdirected himself as a matter of law or failed adequately to reflect his reasoning in the judgment. The Respondent had raised a number of issues on which it had failed altogether and on some of those it was possible to take the view that the evidence was so inadequate that the points had been unreasonably pursued. The Respondent’s allegations of fraud had been rejected outright.

Equitas Ltd & Anor v Horace Holman & Company Ltd & Anor [2008] EWHC 2287 (Comm) (3 October 2008)

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Application for Non-Party Costs Should be Dealt With by Trial Judge: Andrew Smith J. held that the trial judge should hear an application for a non-party costs order unless there were compelling reasons for him not to do so. This was so even though the judge had expressed a view about the conduct of the non-party. It had not been wrong of the judge to raise the possibility of an application for a non-party costs order. Even if the judge had erred in doing so, a fair minded and informed observer would not have concluded that he would be biased in determining the application.

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd & Anor [2008] EWHC 2220 (TCC) (29 September 2008)

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Court of Appeal’s decision in Carver was of General Application: Jackson J. held that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Carver v. BAA Plc was of general application in relation to how a court ought to approach the issue of costs in circumstances where one party had made an offer that was nearly but not quite sufficient and the other party had rejected that offer outright without any attempt to negotiate. The present case was a complicated commercial dispute in which each party had been advancing claims. The appropriate approach was to determine the issue of costs on the ordinary basis and then consider the entirety of both parties’ conduct in order to determine whether any adjustment is required to that figure. Although the conduct of both parties was open to criticism, the overriding reason why the case had not settled was because the Defendant had never made an offer to settle the entire proceedings.

Hedrich & Anor v Standard Bank London Ltd & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 905 (30 July 2008)

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 GMT

No Wasted Costs Where Material Produced as soon as its Significance Realised: The Court of Appeal held that a Wasted Costs Order against a solicitor was not justified where material had been disclosed as soon as its significance became obvious. Although the disclosure given by the solicitor may have been defective, the issue was whether he was clearly and obviously in breach of his duty to the court to ensure that the client discharged his duty to give proper disclosure; no clear picture could emerge if it required the Wasted Costs application to investigate the minutiae of conduct in a complex action. It was necessary to balance the public interest that litigants should not suffer a loss as a result of the misconduct of legal representatives with the authorities that suggested that this form of satellite litigation should be confined.

Angel Airlines v Dean and Dean [2008] EWHC 1513 (QB) (30 June 2008)

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Clear Offer to Settle Bill Could be a ‘Special Circumstance’: It was held on an appeal to the Queens Bench Division that a clear without prejudice offer to settle a bill of costs with its client, made in proper time and in proper form, was capable of being a special circumstance that could reverse the statutory presumption under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 that the firm were liable to pay the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings. However, in the instant case, there were no special circumstances because the parties had already been through two rounds of detailed assessment and were one day away from the conclusion of the assessment by the time the offer was made. Accordingly, no real weight could be given to the offer that, in addition to being too late, had been in the incorrect form as it failed to deal clearly with the costs consequences of its acceptance.

Singh v. Aqua Descaling Ltd, CC, 12/6/08

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Claimant limited to costs recoverable in the Small Claim Track: In a claim where the claimant had claimed damages for credit hire but the claim had failed at trial because the judge had held that the claim should properly have been brought for loss of profits, HHJ Oliver-Jones QC held that prior to a Part 36 offer by the defendant, the claimant should be limited to the costs recoverable under CPR 27 as, had the claim been pleaded correctly in the first place, it would have been allocated to the Small Claims Track rather than the Multi-Track and would probably have settled.

Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 823 (11 June 2008)

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Respondents who Joined Proceedings of their Own Volition should Bear their Own Costs: The Court of Appeal held that, in a situation where the Applicant’s insurance provider had stated that they were only prepared to guarantee the costs of the First Respondent on an Appeal, it was in the interests of justice that the two remaining Respondents who had joined themselves to the proceedings of their own volition should be compelled to bear their own costs. The appeal was a broad appeal, which constituted a matter of public interest that affected many other potential parties in addition to the three Respondents. In the circumstances, the fact that the Applicant’s appeal would be stifled otherwise outweighed the prejudice of compelling the Respondents to bear their own costs.

Legal Services Commission v Rasool [2008] EWCA Civ 154 (05 March 2008)

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Limitation Period ran from Date of Revocation of Legal Aid certificate: The Court held that the limitation period in respect of a claim to recover monies owed in respect of a legal aid certificate ran from the date of its revocation. There was no reason why the position should be any different in respect of costs that were payable as for costs that had been paid. The Court rejected the Respondent’s contention that that the cause of action had not crystallised until the costs had been assessed or taxed. All the ingredients required by Regulation 86 of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 were present and declaratory relief was available, the ascertainment of the amount of the costs was a mere procedural requirement rather than an inherent element of the cause of action.

Palmer v The Estate of Kevin Palmer Deceased & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 46 (06 February 2008)

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Insurance Company Personally Liable for Costs of Claim: The Court of Appeal held that, as the appellant insurance company had funded, controlled and directed the defence of a personal injury claim in its own interest, even where that interest did not coincide with the interest of its insured, it was appropriate to Order it to personally pay the costs of the claim pursuant to section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The insurance company had turned down an offer of settlement, which it later transpired would have been advantageous to accept, without even taking instructions from its insured.

Gloucestershire County Council v Evans & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 21 (31 January 2008)

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 GMT

CFA not Measured by Costs at Risk: The Court of Appeal held that the lawfulness of a percentage increase in a conditional fee agreement was measured not by the costs at risk but by reference to the fees that would have been payable if the agreement in question had not been a CFA. The concept of “costs at risk” formed no part of the definition of a CFA that provided for a success fee in section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

Harris & Anor v Moat Housing Group-South Ltd [2007] EWHC 3092 (QB) (20 December 2007)

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Additional Solicitor must be Included on Bill for Detailed Assessment: Held that where a party sought to recover costs in respect of two separate firms of solicitors, both sets of costs should be included on the bill for detailed assessment. CPR 47.6 clearly provided that detailed assessment proceedings were commenced when the receiving party served a notice of commencement and the bill for costs not a bill for costs. If the party had instructed more than one firm, PD 47 required these additional costs to be included separately in the bill. If the party failed to comply with these requirements, it could not then seek a separate assessment of costs in respect of the solicitor omitted.

Hall & Ors v Stone [2007] EWCA Civ 1354 (18 December 2007)

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Reduction of Costs under CPR 44: The Court of Appeal held that a judge cannot reduce a party’s costs under CPR 44 merely because they had not done as well as they had hoped. The three Claimants had recovered damages for personal injury in sums much less than they had claimed on their Schedule of Loss, but the judge had explicitly rejected the Defendant’s argument that they had purposefully and dishonestly inflated their claims. In reducing the Claimants’ costs the judge had taken conduct into account without specifying what conduct he had in mind and the effect it had had on the proceedings. It was necessary for there to be conduct that had a real effect on the costs of the action in order to warrant a reduction in the entitlement to costs.

Crane v Canons Leisure Centre [2007] EWCA Civ 1352 (19 December 2007)

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Work of Costs Consultants can attract a Success Fee: It was held that costs incurred by a firm of costs consultants in costs-only proceedings were properly regarded as ‘costs’ rather than ‘disbursements’, and thus liable to attract a success fee. It was said that there was a distinction to be drawn between work done on the behalf of the client and disbursements incurred on his behalf. In this case the work carried out by the consultants was undoubtedly solicitors’ work; it was the type of work the solicitors had been retained to do. Although the work had been delegated, the solicitors had never relinquished control of, or responsibility for, it. The fact that success fees usually carry forward into costs-only proceedings recognises the fact that they are designed to compensate lawyers for other cases they have taken on a CFA and lost.

National Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland [2007] EWHC 1742 (Comm) (30 October 2007)

Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Award of Indemnity Costs. An application for indemnity costs against the respondent bank was granted as it had conducted its litigation in an unreasonable and unsatisfactory manner by pursuing allegations in a counterclaim that were deeply flawed from the start and had little prospect of success. It was said that where a court was considering whether a losing party’s conduct was such as to justify an indemnity costs order against that party, the minimum nature of that conduct required to engage the court’s discretion was, except in very rare cases, that there had been a significant level of unreasonableness or otherwise inappropriate conduct in its widest sense in relation to that party’s pre-litigation dealings with the winning party or in relation to the commencement or conduct of the litigation itself.

Martin v Randall [2007] EWCA Civ 1155 (22 October 2007)

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Assessment of the Successful Party under Part 36 The Court of Appeal held that a judge had utilised his discretion correctly in ordering the defendant to pay the claimant’s costs from the date of a Part 36 offer that the defendant had not accepted until the date of settlement a day before the trial had been due to commence. CPR 36 did not provide for a suspension of the 21-day time limit while an offeree investigated an offer. CPR 44 allowed the court to take into account all the circumstances including conduct before and during the proceedings, whether a party had succeeded on all or part of its case and any offers of settlement; the appellate court’s ability to interfere in the exercise of that discretion was constrained. The judge had made a sole error in the computation of the period from which the liability for costs was to run.

Barlow v Perks [2007] EWHC 90087 (Costs) (19 October 2007)

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:00:00 GMT

CFA Unenforceable where Material Non-compliance with Regulation. It was held that a Conditional Fee Agreement was not valid and enforceable because there had been material non-compliance with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 which requires solicitors to inform the client about the availability of insurance and other methods of financing the costs. The client had transferred to a firm of solicitors who were not on the panel of the insurers who were initially funding his claim with the original solicitors. He had been told that his only two options were entering into a CFA and underwriting the claim himself. He had not been told that his before-the-event insurance policy might be valid if he instructed panel solicitors.

Curtis v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT V20330 (30 August 2007)

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Services provided by Sole Proprietor Solicitor Liable for VAT. A sole proprietor solicitor failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that his VAT assessment was incorrect. The services in question were to be treated as the provision of legal services rather than disbursements, which brought them within the scope of VAT. A profit element in the charge for land services took it outside the definition of ‘disbursements’ in the relevant EU Directive. The costs of telegraphic services and land registry documents should properly be considered part of the overall legal service. The bank’s charge for transferring money from one account to another was supplied to the solicitor rather than to his client.

Preece v. Caerphilly County Borough Council (2007) unreported LTL, CC, 15/8/07

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Unsigned Conditional Fee Agreement Unenforceable. Cardiff County Court held that a conditional fee agreement between a client and her solicitors because the solicitors had failed to sign it. Therefore, no costs referable to it were recoverable from the other party. A solicitor’s signature on a CFA was important, and not a mere trivial formality. The signature provided the client with protection against the possibility that an unscrupulous solicitor might seek to enforce his right to be paid reasonable costs if the claim failed. Parliament had clearly and unambiguously required a number of formalities as a prerequisite to enforceability.

Vellacott v The Convergence Group Plc & Ors [2007] EWHC 1774 (Ch) (31 July 2007)

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Director liable for Company pursuing hopeless Counterclaim. Rimer J. held that where companies had irresponsibly pursued a hopeless counterclaim on the instructions and for the benefit of a controlling director, that director was made liable, jointly and severally with the companies, to pay the costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis. It was an exceptional case in which the director was in substance the, or at least a, real party to the proceedings from start to finish.

Martin v Legal Services Commission [2007] EWHC 1786 (Admin) (27 July 2007)

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Legal Aid- Private Client Test. The Claimant applied to judicially review the decision by the Funding Review Committee of the Legal Services Commission to uphold the discharge of his legal aid certificate. The decision was quashed on the basis that the Committee had failed to provide adequate reasons as to how it had concluded that the substantial costs already incurred in the proceedings would not have justified a private client being advised to proceed, or how that conclusion fitted into its published guidance. Nevertheless, Ouseley J. made clear that the Claimant should not raise his hopes that his claim would proceed with legal help as a result of the decision; he had no expectation, legitimate or otherwise, that he would be covered by legal aid at the trial, Article 6 does not oblige a State to provide legal aid in all disputes.

Martin v Legal Services Commission [2007] EWHC 1786 (Admin) (27 July 2007)

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

SES Contracting Ltd & Ors v UK Coal Plc & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 791 (26 July 2007)

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Costs of Application for Pre-Action Disclosure. Held that in the circumstances it had been wrong to order the respondent to an application for pre-accident disclosure to pay the applicant’s costs. The judge had failed to have sufficient regard to CPR 48.1 which lays down the general rule that the respondent to an application for pre-action disclosure would be awarded his costs. He did not appear to have fully appreciated its significance or considered what kind of conduct would justify the court in going so far as to order the appellant to bear the whole of the costs. The appropriate order was no order as to costs.

Collier v. Arriva Yorkshire, unreported, CC, 24/7/07

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Costs of PI action where Claimant found to be Dishonest. At a hearing for the assessment of costs a claimant who, at a previous hearing, had been found to have dishonestly exaggerated several aspects of her claim, was found liable for 90% of the defendant’s costs in respect of the period when the defendant was not protected by a Part 36 offer, subject to a set-off of £5,000. CPR 44.3 requires the conduct of the claimant to be taken into account; this conduct easily brought the claimant within the scope of the indemnity basis.

Fosberry & Anor v Revenue and Customs [2007] EWHC 1512 (Ch) (22 May 2007)

Tue, 22 May 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Enforceability of Conditional Fee Agreement. A conditional fee agreement was unenforceable where it had various deficiencies that were significant enough to prevent substantial compliance with the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000. The agreement in question had not been drawn up by a lawyer. The question for the Court was whether any departures from the Regulations or a requirement under s.58 of the 1990 Act had a materially adverse effect on the protection of the client or on the proper administration of justice.

Lord Chancellor v. Nicholas Haggan QC & ors. [2007] EWHC 1212, QBD, 22/5/07

Tue, 22 May 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Amendment of Graduated Fee Legislation. In a case concerning the amount due to a barrister in graduated fees, the Lord Chancellor amended the governing regulations, the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001 to reflect the true intention of the draftsman.

Wakeling v. Harrington [2007] EWHC 1184, Ch D, 15/5/07

Tue, 15 May 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Agreement between Claimant and Solicitor. An agreement between the Claimant and his solicitor concerning the amount of fees payable, which fees were ultimately to be paid by the Defendant under a costs order, had not amounted to a void contingency agreement, and on its proper interpretation, the agreement had not released the Claimant from any further liability to pay costs to the solicitor. The mere fact that the Claimant had agreed that he would not bring an action for his outstanding costs was not necessarily a complete release of any further liability; the agreement was capable of being merely an agreement not to enforce liability in one particular way.

Lamont v Burton [2007] EWCA Civ 429 (09 May 2007)

Wed, 09 May 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Court’s Discretion under CPR r.44. The Court could not use CPR r.44 to circumvent the mandatory provisions of CPR r.45 in order to award to a claimant who had failed, at trial, to better a Part 36 offer or payment, a success fee no greater than that to which he would have been entitled under r.45.16 had the offer been accepted. It was held that r.44 and r.45 have to be read together; the Court could neither directly award a different success fee nor award the Claimant a proportion of his costs calculated for the purpose of awarding a different success fee.

Straker v Tudor Rose (A Firm) [2007] EWCA Civ 368 (25 April 2007)

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Consequences of failure to comply with pre-action protocol. A judge had misdirected himself as to the applicability of the general rule on costs and had been wrong to reduce the recovery of costs by the successful party to nil for failure to engage in negotiations in accordance with a pre-action protocol. The Court exercised the judge’s discretion afresh, taking guidance from his view as to the way he would have treated the Claimant as the successful party without the Defendant’s willingness to negotiate and in the absence of a Part 36 offer, with a further discount for non-compliance with the protocol. On that basis, the Claimant was awarded 60% of his costs from the date of the Part 36 offer. The judge's order for the period up until that date was not disturbed.

Griffiths & Ors v British Coal Corporation [2007] EWHC 672 (QB) (03 April 2007)

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Settlements made under optional risk offer schemes. Costs were determined in respect of settlements made under optional risk offer schemes which had not existed when the parties had originally entered into a claims handling agreement, which stipulated the fixed costs payable for settlements arising out of group litigation against the British Coal Corporation in respect of its liability to coal miners for respiratory injuries.

Willis v Nicolson [2007] EWCA Civ 199 (13 March 2007)

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:00:00 GMT

The court made general observations about costs capping orders, but concluded that it was for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to decide whether to take up the issues that had been raised, in particular in relation to the difference of judicial opinion as to when and in what circumstances costs capping orders should be made.

Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd [2007] EWHC 828 (Ch) (09 March 2007)

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:00:00 GMT

In the light of the special features of the instant case, despite being identified as the "winner" the claimant would be entitled to only 75 per cent of its costs.

Dadourian Group International Inc & Ors v Simms & Ors [2007] EWHC 454 (Ch) (08 March 2007)

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Whilst the outcome of the parties' separate claims was different, the issues and the evidence were so inextricably intertwined that it was not appropriate to make an issue-based costs order and it was preferable to instead impose a percentage reduction of the claimants' costs which they could otherwise recover to reflect the defendants' success in certain issues.

Various Claimants v Gower Chemicals Ltd & Ors, CC (Cardiff) 28/02/2007

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 GMT

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.

National Westminster Bank Plc v Kotonou [2007] EWCA Civ 223 (26 February 2007)

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Lahey v Pirelli Tyres Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 91 (14 February 2007)

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Finster v Arriva London & Anor [2007] EWHC 90070 (Costs) (07 February 2007)

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Davey v Aylesbury Vale District Council [2007] EWHC 116 (QB) (01 February 2007)

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:00:00 GMT

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 to apply for judicial review, but not for the costs of the permission hearing itself.

Alan Philips Associates Ltd v Dowling & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 12/1/2007

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Haji-Ioannou v Frangos & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1663 (06 December 2006)

Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Northstar Systems Ltd & Ors v Fielding & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1660 (06 December 2006)

Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Horsford v Bird & Ors, PC(Ant)(Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Mance) 28/11/2006

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Radu v Houston & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1575 (22 November 2006)

Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Rebus Lmds Ltd v Jeffrey Green & Russell (A Firm) High Ct (Ch D) 17/11/2006

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Where the costs of litigation were sought to be recovered as damages in a negligence action, the appropriate method of assessment was the amount that would be awarded on assessment by a costs judge on the standard basis.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of Canada & Ors v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (UK) & Anor [2006] EWHC 2885 (Comm) (16 November 2006)

Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Where successful claimants had lost on a distinct issue, it was appropriate to order them to bear certain of their own costs of that issue and pay certain of those of their opponents.

Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) & Anor v Young [2006] EWCA Civ 1534 (14 November 2006)

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

The test under the Limitation Act 1980 s.14(2) to determine when a person would reasonably have considered an injury to be sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages was an objective one. That a person was inhibited by the injury itself from instituting proceedings was a factor to be taken into account.

Kew v Bettermix Ltd & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 14/11/2006

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

On the facts, time had started to run for limitation purposes when the employee's doctor concluded that there was a real possibility that his working conditions had caused his hand arm vibration syndrome, as that would have put the reasonable man on notice to investigate the link further. However, it had been open to the judge on the evidence to disapply the primary limitation period.

Norton v Corus UK Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1630 (13 November 2006)

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

A judge had been correct to rule that a claim issued in 2004, by a claimant who had suffered the symptoms of hand and arm vibration syndrome since 1992, was time barred as the claimant had actual knowledge of the disease in 2003 and constructive knowledge from at least 1997 and probably from 1992.

Weston v Gribben & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1425 (02 November 2006)

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

A convenient way to determine whether an amendment to the particulars of claim outside of the limitation period could be justified pursuant to CPR r.19.5(3) was to ask whether the identity of the claimant could be changed without significantly altering the nature of the claim. In the instant case, the amendments required would have been too substantial.

Alan Williams Entertainments Ltd & Anor v Hurd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1637 (02 November 2006)

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Where both parties had been partially successful a judge had not erred when ordering defendants to pay 75 per cent of the claimants’ costs as the number of issues on which a party won was not a guide to the issue of costs.

Latimer Management Consultants Ltd & Ors v Ellingham Investments Ltd & Anr, High Ct (Ch D) 30/10/2006

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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 being a financial one.

Balmoral Group Ltd. v Borealis (UK) Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 2531 (Comm) (17 October 2006)

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Hooper & Anr v Biddle & Co, High Ct (Ch D) 11/10/2006

Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

White v Revell Rev 1 [2006] EWHC 90054 (Costs) (08 September 2006)

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Vaughan v Jones & Ors [2006] EWHC 2123 (Ch) (11 August 2006)

Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1134 (31 July 2006)

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Moon v Garrett & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1121 (28 July 2006)

Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Gamboa-Garzon v Langer [2006] EWCA Civ 1246 (25 July 2006)

Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd [2006] EWHC 2089 (Ch) (21 July 2006)

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras [2006] EWCA Civ 1038 (19 July 2006)

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Garrett v Halton BC, CA (Civ Div) (Senior Costs Judge Hurst) 18/7/2006; Times, July 19, 2006

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT

When determining whether a solicitor had failed to satisfy a condition referred to in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 s.58(3) it was not necessary to consider whether the client had suffered actual prejudice.

Miller v Hales & Ors, High Ct, 17/7/2006

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT

The court determined liability for costs following a claim in which each party had won on one of the two key issues, but where the claimant was successful overall on a point raised only shortly before the trial began.

Total Spares &supplies Ltd & Anor v Antares SRL & Ors [2006] EWHC 1537 (Ch) (27 June 2006)

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:00:00 GMT

It was just to make a third party costs order against a non-party whose actions were responsible for effectively depriving a claimant of any realistic opportunity of recovering its costs.

Hands v Morrison Construction Services Ltd, High Ct (Ch D) 16/6/2006

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:00:00 GMT

A pre-action disclosure order was made where it would offer a real prospect of achieving the objective of more focused proceedings.

Horton v. Sadler & Anor [2006] UKHL 27 (14 June 2006)

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Where a claimant in a personal injury action had initially issued proceedings before the time limit had expired and had brought a second action in respect of the same injuries after expiry, the court could use its discretion under the Limitation Act 1980 s.33 to dis-apply the three-year time limit. The decision in Walkley v Precision Forgings Limited (1979) 1 WLR 606 was overruled, as it had deprived claimants of a right that Parliament had intended them to have, and had given rise to much unsatisfactory jurisprudence.

Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors [2006] EWHC 1315 (Ch) (12 June 2006)

Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:00:00 GMT

By murdering the opposing party, who was a vital witness to the litigation, the defendant had rendered a fair trial no longer possible and had denied himself the right to proceed with his defence and counterclaim.

Hammond Suddards (A Firm) v Jebb, CA (Civ Div) 26/5/2006

Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

The judge had taken into account all relevant factors when awarding interest on indemnity costs and had correctly exercised his discretion in the level of interest awarded.

Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 1242 (Ch) (26 May 2006)

Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

The principles relating to costs capping orders laid down in King v Telegraph Group Ltd (2004) EWCA Civ 613 , (2005) 1 WLR 2282, a defamation case, were not applicable to all litigation. In the instant case the fact that the claimant was instructing solicitors under a conditional fee agreement without after the event insurance cover was not enough in itself to justify a costs capping order being made.

Marsh v Sofaer & Anor [2006] EWHC 1217 (Ch) (25 May 2006)

Thu, 25 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

It was not appropriate to make a wasted costs order against solicitors who had acted for the claimant in an action that had been discontinued. The defendant had not made out an allegation that no reasonably competent solicitor could have concluded that the claimant had any realistic prospect of establishing that she had been under a disability for limitation purposes during the relevant period.

Woollard & Anor v Fowler [2005] EWHC 90051 (Costs) (24 May 2006)

Wed, 24 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Fees charged by medical reporting agencies for supplying medical reports and records were recoverable as disbursements under the CPR r.45.10(2) provided that they were reasonable and proportionate.

La Chemise Lacoste SA & Ors v Sketchers USA Ltd, High Ct (Ch D) 24/5/2006

Wed, 24 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Costs of amendment applications. Under the CPR the costs of any amendment application that ought to have been consented to would be visited against the opposing party. It behoved parties in litigation to be sensible about applications by the other side and not unreasonably refuse.

Zambia, Attorney General v Meer Care & Desai (A Firm) & Ors [2006] EWHC 1179 (Ch) (22 May 2006)

Mon, 22 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

A claim alleging that the second and eighth defendants had participated in a conspiracy to defraud had been sufficiently pleaded and it would not be appropriate to strike it out.

Brennan v Associated Asphalt Ltd. [2006] EWHC 90052 (Costs) (18 May 2006)

Thu, 18 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

The Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 reg.3 required a Conditional Fee Agreement to specify how much of the percentage increase in a success fee related to the cost of the postponement of payment of solicitors' charges and disbursements. The words "if any" in reg.3(1)(b) of the Regulations did not mean that if the deferral element was nil there was no need to mention it.

Oyston v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2006] EWHC 90053 (Costs) (16 May 2006)

Tue, 16 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

A conditional fee agreement that provided for a 100 per cent success fee and payment of a bonus in the event that the client recovered damages in excess of a certain amount was in clear breach of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 s.58(4). A subsequent deed of variation was ineffective to rectify the situation and severance would not accord with either the statutory framework laid down for CFAs or with the correct approach to public policy.

Wyatt & Anr v Portsmouth Hospital NHS Trust, CA (Civ Div) 3/5/2006

Wed, 03 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Costs order against publicly-funded litigants. A costs order was made against publicly-funded litigants where, but for costs protection, the court would have made an order against them in the context of an application under the Access to Justice Act 1999 s.11(1). As there was sufficient information, the amount they were ordered to pay was nil.

Corbett v Bond Pearce (a firm) [2006] EWHC 909 (Ch) (28 April 2006)

Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Exceptional case of recovering costs as part of damages awarded. It would only be in an exceptional case that costs, ordered to be paid by the claimant to the defendant in the course of a negligence claim by the former against the latter, could be recovered by the claimant from the defendant as part of the damages awarded to the claimant against the defendant in the same claim.

Wilkinson v Kitzinger & Ors [2006] EWHC 835 (Fam) (12 April 2006)

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Protective costs orders. A petitioner who sought a declaration that her same sex marriage was a valid marriage in the United Kingdom was refused a protective costs order in respect of the costs of the Lord Chancellor as intervener, as the proceedings did not raise issues of general public importance and it was not unreasonable that the petitioner should be at risk of at least a contribution to the intervener's costs.

Wylde v Culver [2006] EWHC 923 (Ch) (12 April 2006)

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:00:00 GMT

No order for costs where claim discontinued. An application for discontinuance of a claim challenging a will was granted and no order as to costs made, as there was no evidence to show that the claimant had acted unreasonably or in bad faith in challenging the will.

Three Rivers District Council & Ors v The Governor & Company of the Bank of England [2006] EWHC 816 (Comm) (12 April 2006)

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Indemnity costs. A trial judge's duty to assist the costs judge should not be defeated by the potentially paying litigant offering to pay costs on an indemnity basis while reserving the right to argue that its opponent's expenditure of costs had been extravagant or unreasonable. The Bank of England was entitled to indemnity costs after the liquidators of a failed bank discontinued their claim for misfeasance in public office.

Promar International Ltd v Clarke, CA (Civ Div) 4/4/2006

Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Each party to pay own costs where no winner and no loser. An order that each party was responsible for its own costs in respect of an action for alleged breaches of a restrictive covenant was not manifestly unjust particularly where the order fairly reflected that there was no winner and no loser.

Komtel Ltd & Anr v Totem Communications Ltd, High Ct, 22/3/2006

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Master’s failure to give reasons for dismissing application for security for costs justified Order being set aside. A master's failure to give reasons for the dismissal of an application for security for costs taken together with a strong prima facie case for an order for security justified the setting aside of his order.

Day v Day, CA (Civ Div) 14/3/2006

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Error of discretion where no award of costs where appellant had succeeded in action

Haji-Ioannou & Ors v Frangos & Ors [2006] EWHC 279 (Ch) (24 February 2006)

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Failure to commence detailed assessment proceedings in time. Where a party had failed to commence detailed assessment proceedings in time the court had the power to disallow both interest and costs, and it could not be said that where the court disallowed interest it would only be in exceptional circumstances that it could also disallow costs.

R v Denbighshire Local Health Board & Anr, High Ct (QBD, Admin) 17/2/2006

Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Costs of judicial review. The court made no order for costs where a claim for judicial review had been settled except as to costs, as the claim would not have, in the circumstances, proceeded beyond the permission stage and, if proceedings had been taken, permission would have been refused as there was an alternative remedy.

John Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No. 2) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 64 (09 February 2006)

Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Adjudicator’s powers in respect of costs. On the correct interpretation of the agreement for adjudication the adjudicator's power to direct the payment of legal costs was not limited to circumstances in which he made a substantive contested decision on the dispute referred to him.

Butt v Nizami [2006] EWHC 159 (QB) (09 February 2006): Butt v Kamuluden, High Ct, 9/2/2006

Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Indemnity principle. The indemnity principle had no application to the fixed recoverable costs provisions of CPR Part 45 (II), and in cases falling within CPR Part 45 (II) the receiving party did not have to demonstrate that there was a valid retainer or conditional fee agreement between the solicitor and client but merely had to show compliance with the relevant provisions of the CPR.

Fourie v Le Roux & Ors, High Ct (Ch D) 24/1/2006

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Apportionment of costs liability. In circumstances where costs had been incurred for two purposes, they had to be apportioned broadly between each of the purposes.

Square Miles Partnership Ltd v Fitzmaurice McCall Ltd, High Ct (Ch D) 18/1/2006

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Both parties successful – No Order as to costs. In the circumstances, as both parties to an action could be regarded as having been successful, the court would make no order as to costs.

Hickman v Lapthorn [2006] EWHC 12 (QB) (17 January 2006)

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Costs Order not made as a result of unwillingness to negotiate – Refusal not demonstrated to be unreasonable. A costs order made by the court did not reflect a party's refusal to negotiate or enter into mediation prior to trial, as it had not been demonstrated that the party's position as to mediation and negotiation was unreasonable.

Weston & Anor v Weston & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 42 (17 January 2006)

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT

The judge had been wrong to order an assessment of costs on an indemnity basis where one of the parties had not been able to make representations about evidence and where the action had commenced 40 years earlier.

AB & Ors v Department of Trade & Industry S/A British Coal Corporation, CA (Civ Div) 21/12/2005

Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT

When awarding costs the judge had erred in not granting an adjournment to enable further evidence to be brought that could have helped in the assessment of those costs.

Farag v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, CA (Civ Div) 15/12/2005

Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Pre-CPR Settlement Order to be taken into account. An offer to settle made prior to the coming into force of the CPR and withdrawn some time before the trial should still have been taken into account by the judge when considering an order for costs.

Terry v Tower Hamlets LBC, High Ct, 15/12/2005

Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Indemnity Costs and Delay. The claimant, in a successful action that should have been commenced in the county court, was not prohibited on the grounds of jurisdiction from recovering the costs he ordinarily would have been awarded, where the actions of the defendant had caused delay in the proceedings and the judge had decided that, to avoid further delay, the case should be heard in the High Court rather than the county court.

Nicholas Drukker & Co v Pridie Brewster & Co, High Ct, 12/12/2005

Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Abuse of Process – Matters raised in Points of Dispute. It was an abuse of process for a solicitor's client to seek to raise before the costs judge, by way of the points of dispute to the bill of costs on a detailed assessment, matters that could, and should, have been litigated before the court after the exchange of the pleadings in the pre-action protocol, but that had not been pursued after the protocol had run its course.

Walker Residential Ltd. v Davis & Anor [2005] EWHC 3483 (Ch) (09 December 2005)

Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs & Part 36 Offers. Where a claimant had accepted a Part 36 payment in circumstances such that the provisions of CPR r.44.12(1)(b) operated, a deputy master did not have jurisdiction to deprive the claimant of a mandatory costs order in its favour.

Codent Ltd v Lyson Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1835 (08 December 2005)

Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs & Part 36 Offers. When dealing with costs the judge had erred in principle when ruling that a Calderbank offer made by the defendant either had full effect or no effect at all and, as a result, the costs order was manifestly unjust to the defendant who had made a clear offer substantially exceeding the amount that the claimant recovered.

BE Studios Ltd. v Smith & Williamson Ltd. [2005] EWHC 2730 (Ch) (02 December 2005)

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Non-Party Costs Order. It was not a requirement for the making of a non-party costs order against a director, who had funded and controlled litigation consequent on a claim brought by his company at his instance, that impropriety had to be shown in the way that the claim was prosecuted.

Agassi v Robinson & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 2/12/2005; (2005) NPC 140; Independent, December 7, 2005

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Legal Advice & Funding. Where a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation instructed a barrister under the Bar's Licensed Access Scheme, the presence of the barrister did not prevent the party on whose behalf the barrister had been instructed from being a litigant in person. The words "acting as a solicitor" in s.20 of the Solicitors Act 1974 were limited to the doing of acts that only a solicitor could perform and/or the doing of acts by a person pretending or holding himself out to be a solicitor. A party was not entitled to recover costs as a disbursement in respect of work done by another that would normally have been done by a solicitor.

Crestfort Ltd & Ors v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 2480 (Ch) (11 November 2005)

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:00:00 GMT

General rule – Costs follow the event: There was no reason, in the circumstances, to depart from the general rule that costs should follow the event. The landlords, who were successful in their action against the tenants, were entitled to all their costs.

Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation [2005] EWHC 2503 (QB) (11 November 2005)

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Entitlement to know opposing party’s legal costs insurance cover & estimated costs of action: A party's solicitors were entitled to be informed about the extent of the opposing party's legal costs insurance cover. They were also entitled to be informed if the estimated costs of the action had risen substantially, and if they encountered difficulty in obtaining that information they should make an application pursuant to Practice Direction : (Parts 43 - 48) : Schedule of Costs Precedents s.6.3 for the court to order the opposing party to file an estimate.

Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 1468 (09 November 2005)

Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Varying order for security of costs: Where parties agreed security for costs in a certain sum, and agreed that that sum would not be increased even if there was a material change of circumstances, the court retained a residual discretion to vary the order where there were wholly exceptional circumstances.

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. & Anor v Petromec Inc & Ors [2005] EWHC 2430 (Comm) (03 November 2005)

Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Non-party costs order: It was appropriate to make a non-party costs order against an individual and to join him in proceedings where he had exercised, through companies, substantial control over the course of those proceedings and had a personal interest in the outcome.

Garbutt & Anor v Edwards & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1206 (27 October 2005)

Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Solicitor’s failure to provide estimate of costs: The failure of a solicitor to give the client an estimate of costs in accordance with the Solicitors' Costs Information and Client Care Code did not render the contract of retainer unenforceable and it was a question for the discretion of the judge assessing costs in any particular case whether to take into account any failure by the receiving party's solicitor to provide an estimate as required by the code.

Garbutt & Anor v Edwards & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1206 (27 October 2005)

Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:00:00 GMT

A Solicitor’s failure to give an estimate of costs to the client in accordance with the Solicitors’ Practice Rules 1990 did not render the contract of retainer unenforceable. It was a matter in the discretion of the judge assessing costs. In the absence of a costs estimate, the judge would have to consider to what extent the costs incurred would have been lower had an adequate estimate been provided. It was deemed illogical to restrict the party who had failed to file a costs estimate to a fixed tariff. Failure to provide a costs estimate was an inappropriate reason to disallow costs under CPR 44.14. In the instant case there was no evidence to support the proposition that the costs which the paying party was liable to pay would have been lower if a costs estimate had been provided.

Act Construction v Mackie & Anr , CA (Civ Div) 25/10/2005

Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs – Money claims: In awarding a defendant all of the costs of a counterclaim that had only been partially successful in the context of a substantially successful claim, a judge had erred by failing to have regard to the principle in monetary claims that it was most important to identify the party who was to pay money to the other.

Campbell v. MGN Ltd [2005] UKHL 61 (20 October 2005)

Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs and Human Rights: The scheme allowing success fees to be recovered from the losing party to an action for defamation was compatible withArt.10 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, therefore a defendant could not argue that the threat of liability to pay a large sum by way of costs infringed its right to freedom of expression.

Reid v The Capita Group Plc, High Ct (Ch D) 17/10/2005

Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs following discontinuance: The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on discontinuance of proceedings where it had been premature for the claimant to issue proceedings in order to obtain disclosure of documentation and there had been insufficient notice of the proceedings to the defendant.

Love & Care Ltd v Kiernan & Ors [2005] EWHC 2180 (Ch) (13 October 2005)

Thu, 13 Oct 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Appropriateness of Order for Security of Costs: Although there was reason to believe that the claimant company would be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so, in the circumstances it would not be appropriate to order the claimant to give security for the costs of its action concerning the freehold of a property.

Goodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire & Luton & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1172 (12 October 2005)

Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Considerations for Protective Costs Orders: When making an application for a protective costs order for the first time at the appeal stage there was no reason why different considerations from those set out in R (on the application of Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (2005) EWCA Civ 192, Independent, March 4, 2005 should be applied.

A A & Ors v Tui UK Ltd & Ors [2005] EWHC 90017 (Costs) (11 August 2005)

Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs Capping Order – group litigation: The senior costs judge quantified the amount of a costs capping order in respect of the claimants' costs in holiday group litigation on the basis that the litigation was being used to generate excessive and unreasonable costs and that the ability of claimants with modest claims to pursue their claims under the group litigation order came with the concomitant requirement that the costs be strictly controlled.

STAGHOLD LTD v (1) HIKO TAKEDA (2) SUE MATSUE TAKEDA (2005) CC (London) (Judge Levy QC) 8/8/2005

Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:00:00 GMT

A landlord was entitled to recover the costs of successful litigation against a tenant before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal when this could be implied from a proper construction of the lease. The recovery of these costs was not precluded by Schedule 12 of The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The tenant's argument that the lease did not envisage recovery of costs where costs could be recovered on conclusion of tribunal proceedings was rejected. The court found that the landlord had been forced into the proceedings and it would have been inequitable for him not to have been able to recover such costs under the lease.

Kitchen v Burwell Reed & Kinghorn Ltd. [2005] EWHC 1771 (QB) (03 August 2005)

Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:00:00 GMT

It could be legitimately inferred from the conduct of the client that he had agreed to a proposed variation by a firm of solicitors of an initial retainer, in relation to an action brought by the client against his former employers, in order to reflect a collective conditional fee agreement entered into between the client's union and the firm. Further, under the agreement, the firm at first instance was required to recover charges directly from the union rather than the client, but the agreement did not altogether exclude the liability of the client.

ILONA SZEKERES v ALAN SMEATH & CO (2005) Ch D (Pumfrey J, Master Rogers, Mr Saroop) 2/8/2005

Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 GMT

A claim form served by a solicitor with defects had been properly served and was sufficient to commence proceedings for detailed assessment in-spite of the defects. It was held on appeal that the claim form was sufficient to convey the content of the claim and the appellant’s intention to have the bills assessed. This automatic statutory right ought not to be denied owing to a formal defect. The court found that this claim form had been sufficient to commence proceedings and the court could then correct the formal defect.

ILONA SZEKERES v ALAN SMEATH & CO [2005] EWHC 1733 (Ch) Ch D (Pumfrey J, Master Rogers, Mr Saroop) 2/8/2005

Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant successfully appealed against the court's refusal to make an order for detailed assessment of bills delivered by the respondent firm of solicitors. The order sought had been refused owing to the applicant's failure to comply with the formal requirements of such an application. It was argued for the Respondent that the Appellant had failed to state the remedy sought, the legal basis under which it was claimed and had failed to sign a statement of truth. The court refused to allow rectification of the errors highlighted by the Respondent and the claim was dismissed. On appeal it was held that there being no defence on the merits to this claim; the claim could not be dismissed for formal deficiency. The defects in the claim form did not prevent the Respondent establishing the basis of the Appellant's claim. It was held that the trial judge had acted in error.

Less & Ors v Benedict [2005] EWHC 1643 (Ch) (25 July 2005)

Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT

A three year delay by a receiving party in bringing proceedings for detailed costs assessment was held not to have constituted a breach of the paying parties’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time pursuant to Art.6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Further, the delay had not been abusive so as to merit a sanction under CPR r.44.14. CPR Part 47 provided a mechanism for the paying parties to bring the matter to the attention of the court in order to obtain a hearing within a reasonable time. It therefore could not be said that they had been deprived of their rights under Art.6 where they failed to take advantage of that mechanism.

Stone & Rolls Ltd v Micro Communications Inc, High Ct (Ch D) 13/7/2005

Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Non-party – reimbursement of costs of disclosure: A non-party was entitled to reimbursement of most of costs incurred in complying with a disclosure order, despite having misled the court on a material issue.

Lifeline Gloves Ltd v Richardson & Anr, High Ct (Ch D) 4/7/2005

Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Unreasonable conduct and indemnity costs: The Defendant was ordered to pay indemnity costs to the Claimant owing to its unreasonable conduct during the litigation. The Claimant had made an application for summary judgment. This was dismissed on the basis that the defence case indicated that a trial would be justified. The Defendant then withdrew its defence. An application for indemnity costs was granted under CPR r. 44.3 (4) (a), the withdrawal of the defence constituted unreasonable behaviour.

LIFELINE GLOVES LTD v RICHARDSON & ANOR Ch D (Pumfrey J) 4/7/2005

Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT

An order for costs on the indemnity basis was made when the Defendant resisted a summary judgment application but subsequently withdrew its defence. The court held that the Defendant’s conduct during the course of the litigation and the complete lack of merit in the defence pursued amounted to unreasonable behaviour and justified and award of costs on the indemnity basis.

Barndeal Ltd & Anor v Richmond-Upon-Thames [2005] EWHC 1377 (QB) (30 June 2005)

Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Application for costs against non-parties: Where an application for costs to be paid by non-parties was not made until after judgment had been given, and without prior notice, it was held that the Court did not have sufficient evidence of the allegations made against the non-parties and it would have been a denial of the fundamental right of the non-parties to be heard on such serious allegations if the Court were to decide the issues summarily.

McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd. [2005] EWHC 1419 (TCC) (24 June 2005)

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs “incidental to” subsequent proceedings: The Court held that costs which the Defendant had incurred at the pre-action protocol stage in successfully persuading the Claimant to abandon a claim could not be considered costs "incidental to" any subsequent proceedings, save in exceptional circumstances which gave rise to some sort of unreasonable conduct. Accordingly, these costs were not recoverable under s.51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

E. Ivor Hughes Education Foundation v Leach, High Ct (Ch D) 14/6/2005

Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs upon acceptance of Part 36 payment-in as satisfaction of part of claim: Where the claimant had accepted a payment-in as satisfaction for part of a claim that was substantially less than the original claim, and then abandoned the remaining claim, the court ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs of the claim, save for that part of the claim which related to the payment -n, the costs of which the defendant was order to pay pursuant to CPR Part 27

PATUREL v. FRANCE - 54968/00 [2005] ECHR 913 (22 December 2005)

Thu, 26 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Solicitors’ costs where not on record:Where no solicitors had been named on the court record as representing the successful party, the deputy master had been entitled to find on the evidence that the party had nevertheless been advised by a solicitor and that the costs of those services should be allowed.

BENOIT JULIEN MATHIEU PATUREL v MARBLE ARCH SERVICES LTD Sup Ct Costs Office (Cox J, Master O'Hare, Robert Carter) 26/5/2005

Thu, 26 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

An appeal against an award of costs to a litigant in person was dismissed. Although no solicitor appeared on the record there was evidence to show that the litigant had received legal advice and assistance in preparation of his case. There was also evidence to show that the Claimant had paid for these services. In the circumstances their was no grounds for arguing that such an award of costs would be in breach the indemnity principle.

Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 655 (26 May 2005)

Thu, 26 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Liability of professional funder: A professional funder, who had financed part of a claimant's costs of litigation in a manner which facilitated access to justice and which was not otherwise objectionable, should be potentially liable for the costs of the opposing party only to the extent of the funding provided.

Re B (Children) CA (Civ Div) 26/5/2005

Thu, 26 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Publicly-funded party: Where a litigant had been publicly funded for part but not all of the proceedings, and the party entitled to recover costs against him had failed to seek a detailed assessment in time to satisfy the provisions in relation to the costs incurred during the period in which the litigant had been publicly funded, the receiving party was still entitled to recover her costs for the period in which public funding had not applied.

ANTHONY BURTON (2) JENNIFER HAYNES v (1) GUY KINGSLEY (2) LEONARD HARPER QBD (Southampton) (Richards J) 25/5/2005

Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

A success fee of 100% entered into in the instant case was rejected and an uplift of 50% substituted. It was held that where a case had a better than evens prospect of success the appropriate uplift would be between 33% -50%. The Claimant’s submission that costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis was rejected. It was not unreasonable for the parties to delay settlement of the claim until the date of trial. It was unclear how liability would be apportioned between the two defendants. The decision would depend largely on the quality of witness evidence. Costs were awarded on the standard basis.

Burton & Anor v Kingsley & Anor [2005] EWHC 1034 (QB) (25 May 2005)

Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Percentage uplift under CFA: In a personal injury claim, where the claimants had sustained serious injuries and liability was uncertain, it was held that the appropriate percentage uplift under a conditional fee agreement was 50 per cent. This figure reflected the very significant element of risk which existed at the time when the conditional fee agreement was entered into.

RBG Resources Plc (In Liquidation) v Rastogi & Ors [2005] EWHC 994 (Ch) (24 May 2005)

Tue, 24 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

This case sounds a cautionary note to liquidators who issue proceedings for and on behalf of a company where they were open to being held liable for the Defendant’s costs when proceedings were dis-continued. In the instant case the liquidators were ordered to pay the costs of the third defendant despite his unreasonable conduct. A reduction of 40% was made to the third defendant’s costs to reflect the fact the delay in settlement caused by his unreasonable conduct.

HSS Hire Services Group Plc v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 626 (24 May 2005)

Tue, 24 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

In this case the court had to determine the effect of a Part 36 payment covering the whole matter where there had been a trial on a preliminary issue. The court found that the provisions of Part 36 encouraged an approach whereby the question of costs would be adjourned until all the issues in the case had been resolved. At that stage the court could exercise its discretion in relation to the Part 36 offer or payment. CPR r. 36.19 did not allow for the disclosure of the Part 36 payment in. In the instant case the judge should have reserved the question of costs pending determination of damages to be awarded in the claim. His decision was reversed.

Aegis Group Plc & Ors v Inland Revenue [2005] EWHC 1468 (Ch) (13 May 2005)

Fri, 13 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs of judicial review application where pre-action protocol not complied with: Where the claimant has discontinued its judicial review application, thus rendering it liable to pay the defendant’s costs, those costs would be reduced to reflect the defendant’s failure to comply with the judicial review pre-action protocol.

London Borough of Hackney v Campbell & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 613 (28 April 2005)

Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

No order as to costs where insufficient material to decide apportionment on the basis of the parties’ success on issues in dispute: Although costs ought to have been apportioned to reflect the appellant's success on a number of the allegations made in the respondent's defence and counterclaim, it had not been possible for the court to reach a view as to an appropriate amount to apportion since there was inadequate material upon which to form such a view. Accordingly, it was held that the appropriate order was that there be no order as to costs on the defence and counterclaim.

Alli v Luton & Dunstable NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 551 (27 April 2005)

Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Appropriateness of no order as to costs: Following a successful personal injury claim, the judge’s decision that there should be no order as to costs, on the basis that the claimant’s case had materially changed, was held to be wrong. There had been no material change in the case. The main issue had always been whether or not the claimant’s injury resulted from a breach of the defendant’s statutory obligations and/or negligence.

KU (A Child) v LCC [2005] EWCA Civ 475 (27 April 2005)

Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Reasonableness of CFA success fee for detailed assessment: When called upon to assess the reasonableness of a success fee, the court must have regard to the facts and circumstances as they reasonably appeared to the solicitor at the time that the CFA was entered into, and not the facts and circumstances viewed with the benefit of hindsight. The court did not have the power under para.11.8(2) of the Costs Practice Direction to direct that a success fee in a CFA was recoverable at different rates for different periods of the proceedings, including a detailed assessment of costs.

Allison v Brighton & Hove City Council, CA (Civ Div) 22/04/2005

Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs order following failure to beat Part 36 Payment into Court: Where the appellant had failed to beat the respondent’s payment into court, the judge was fully entitled in the circumstances of the case to make an order that the appellant should only receive 25% of his costs up to the date when the offer was made.

Rio Properties Inc & Anor v Gibson Dunn & Crutcher & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 534 (22 April 2005)

Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

The appellants appealed against an order for costs in favour of the Respondents and the judge’s refusal to treat their without prejudice offer for costs as having the same effect as a Part 36 offer. It was held that the undertaking to pay costs only covered disclosure as a result of the order of 23rd July or compliance with that order. The court also found that Part 36 could only be taken to apply to offers falling within it. This offer was difficult to evaluate and the respondents could not be criticised for not accepting it.

Weir & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport, High Ct (Ch D) 21/04/2005

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Appropriateness of Costs Capping Order: The court held that it was not appropriate to grant a costs capping order in light of the fact that the applicant members of the Railtrack Private Shareholders Action Group had a private interest in the outcome of their proceedings against the Secretary of State for Transport.

WEIR & ORS v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT (2005) Ch D (Lindsay J) 21/4/2005

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

The court refused to grant the costs capping order sought by the Claimant (W). The court found that the requirements for granting a costs capping order had not been met. Firstly, the Claimant had a private interest in the claim (in that W sought compensation). Secondly, the costs in this claim had not spiralled out of control and could be reduced when assessed after the conclusion of the claim.

Goodwood Recoveries Ltd v Breen [2005] EWCA Civ 414 (19 April 2005)

Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

A non-party director was unsuccessful in his appeal against a costs order made against him. The court found that he was the driving force behind the litigation (the ‘real party’) in a claim which had been issued in the company’s name. The court found that the claim had been issued for the appellant’s own benefit and the costs of the litigation had been caused by his dishonesty and impropriety.

Glidepath Holdings BV & Ors v Early Red Corporation & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 525 (19 April 2005)

Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Appeal of Costs Order: An appeal against a costs order was dismissed, where both the application seeking permission to appeal and the grounds of the submissions heard at the substantive hearing founded upon a misconception that the appellants had not been awarded the costs of a specific issue. Counsel were reminded that they have a duty on ex parte applications to bring all relevant matters to the attention of the court, whether in support of their applications or not.

Collins (t/a XI Software Ltd) v HM Inspector Of Taxes [2005] UKSPC SPC00472 (15 April 2005)

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

The appellant (C ) sought an order for costs against the Inland Revenue under the Special Commissioner (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994 reg. 21. C had been informed that a number of payments made for legal fees fell to be treated as benefits and that Class 1 National insurance contributions did not arise on most benefits. C was then issued with a decision notice for a class 1 national insurance contribution charge and a further decision notice with no explanation for the charge. C challenged both decision notices and seven days before the hearing on the matter the Inland Revenue announced that it would not be pursuing either matter. The appeal was refused. While the appellant may not have been fully informed of the basis for the revenue’s decision such behaviour did not meet the standard of being wholly unreasonable which the court accepted was very high.

Salman, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Barking & Dagenham [2005] EWHC 731 (Admin) (14 April 2005)

Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

It was held that although the judicial review proceedings which were the subject of the claim for costs had become academic, the Claimant was still entitled to her costs of issuing those proceedings because at the time when those proceedings were issued the Claimant had a good grounds for seeking relief.

A & Ors, R (on the application of) v East Sussex County Council [2005] EWHC 585 (Admin) (11 April 2005)

Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs following Judicial Review proceedings: The court determined costs following two separate family and judicial review proceedings involving two sets of related, but separately represented, claimants which concerned the treatment of two disabled claimants by the other claimants, their mother and step-father and the defendant local authority.

Burchell v Bullard & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 358 (08 April 2005)

Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs Order: Where the claim and counterclaim both succeeded, but the quantum of the claim exceeded the counterclaim, it was held that the judge had erred in ordering the claimant to pay the costs of the counterclaim and the defendants to pay the costs of the claim. The defendants were the unsuccessful parties and, in the circumstances, a just award was that the claimant should have 60% of the costs of the proceedings claim and counterclaim together, and the same percentage of the costs of the Part 20 proceedings.

Venture Finance Plc v Mead & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 325 (22 March 2005)

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Costs in proceedings to recover money under deed of guarantee: Each of the defendants was under a contractual obligation to pay all the costs and expenses arising out of proceedings involving recovery of monies under a deed of guarantee. It was held that the judge had erred in awarding costs in the terms sought by the defendants and in concluding that the only order that would give effect to the parties’ contractual rights was that each defendant should be liable for 50% of the whole costs of the proceedings. The judge ought to have considered, in relation to each respondent, the extent to which the whole costs of the proceedings could be said to arise out of the claim to recover under the guarantee obligations of that respondent and apportion liability for costs appropriately between the respondents.

Venture Finance Plc v Mead & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 325 (22 March 2005)

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

The judge had erred in concluding that he ought to exercise his discretion under CPR r.48. He was wrong to conclude that each Defendant was only liable for 50% of the costs. The judge ought to have considered the extent to which each Defendant was liable for the cost of the proceedings to recover monies under the guarantee. He would be entitled to find that one Defendant could be liable for all or the majority of the costs of the proceedings. If V could not recover the costs of the proceedings from the second Defendant it would be left with a significant shortfall as the first Defendant was bankrupt.

Devon County Council v Clarke [2005] EWCA Civ 266 (17 March 2005)

Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

The local authority appealed against the District Judge’s finding that it was liable for the negligence of an educational psychologist in relation to the assessment of and provision of special education needs of the respondent. The local authority also appealed against the judge’s finding that the respondent was entitled to all his costs. On appeal it was held that there was a sufficient evidence to find that the psychologists negligence had caused the Respondent’s loss remedial teaching to minimise the effects of his dyslexia. The judge’s costs order should have reflected the fact that the Respondent had failed on a number of key issues and the Respondent should only have recovered 70% of his costs.

Corner House Research, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2005] EWCA Civ 192 (01 March 2005)

Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

The court gave guidance on the principles and practice of making protective costs orders in public law cases. A protective costs order would only be made in exceptional cases. On the present facts, a protective costs order would be made where an application for judicial review was of general public importance because it related to the interests of the taxpayer in the support of major British companies in international trade and raised issues about the non-implementation of the published consultation policy of a government department.

S v H, High Ct (Fam Div)

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Where the husband in ancillary relief proceedings had given wrong and misleading information about a sum of money that was of a sufficient size to materially affect the final outcome, he could not complain if his conduct attracted an adverse order in costs. In a highly-charged situation, with serious allegations about conduct being raised on both sides, the obligation to provide proper disclosure was heightened. However, the wife's determination to run all arguments available to her, with a disregard for time and cost, was unreasonable and this also had to be taken into account in exercising the court’s discretion as to costs.