swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Costs - From: 1993 To: 1993
This page lists 24 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Steele Ford and Newton v Crown Prosecution Service (No.2); HL 1993 - [1994] 1 AC 22; [1993] 2 All ER 769; [1993] 2 WLR 934
Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171
1993
CA
Scott LJ
Legal Professions, Costs
A clause entitling a mortgagee to recover legal costs from the mortgagor did not extend to costs that were unreasonably incurred or which were unreasonable in amount. Whether costs were unreasonably incurred or were unreasonable in amount was to be determined in accordance with the rules governing the taxation of costs on the indemnity basis under the Rules of the Supreme Court. The burden of showing that the costs were unreasonable in either respect was on the mortgagor and so that any doubts on those matters were to be resolved in favour of the mortgagee.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Okotcha v Voest Alpine Intertrading GmbH [1993] BCLC 474
1993
CA
Bingham LJ
Costs, Litigation Practice
When deciding whether to order security for costs, the possibility or probability that the plaintiff company will be deterred from pursuing its claim is not the sole deciding factor.
1 Citers
Rediffusion v Singer Link [1993] FSR 369
1993
CA
Aldous LJ
Intellectual Property, Costs
In Patent infringement proceedings it may be proper for a court to assess costs on an issue by issue basis because of the "large number of issues and the very extensive costs that can be incurred."
1 Citers
Brush v Bower Cotton and Bower [1993] 1 WLR 1328
1993
Brooke J
Costs
The solicitors had undertaken six cases for the applicant, Costs had been awarded on the standard basis and a bill prepared on a legal aid basis.
RSC Ord 62 R12(1) R17(1)
In Re Mason Gazette, 13 January 1993
13 Jan 1993
QBD
Costs
Costs of intervention in restraining order to come from central funds.
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 8(1)
Madurasinghe v Penguin Electronics (A Firm) Gazette, 13 January 1993; [1993] 1 WLR 989
13 Jan 1993
CA
Costs, Legal Professions, Litigation Practice
A taxation review is a rehearing by the circuit judge, exercising his own discretion. It is not the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction.
County Court Rules 1981 38(24)(6) - Solicitors Act 1974 74
NFC Properties Ltd v London Borough of Camden Ind Summary, 15 February 1993
15 Feb 1993
CA
Costs
An order relating to the taxation of costs was not itself an order 'only for costs' which must be left to the discretion of the judge hearing the application. Accordingly, the court of appeal could grant leave to appeal against the order where this was refused by the judge involved.
Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1)(f)
Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (1) Independent, 04 May 1993; Ind Summary, 20 March 1995; Times, 05 May 1993
4 May 1993
QBD
Judicial Review, Customs and Excise, Legal Aid, Costs, Criminal Practice
The introduction of a Standard Criminal Legal Aid fees regime was within the Lord Chancellor's proper range of discretion, even without consultation with the Law Society.
The meaning of 'carried entering UK' can include clothing being worn, but caution to be used by the courts not to extend the meaning unnecessarily.
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 78(2) - Legal Aid Act 1988 34
1 Citers
Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson; CA 4-May-1993 - Gazette, 16 June 1993; Independent, 14 May 1993; Times, 04 May 1993; [1994] QB 179; [1993] 4 All ER 143; [1993] 3 WLR 830
Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Ex Parte Leeds Permanent Building Society and Others Times, 28 May 1993
28 May 1993
QBD
Costs
Where legislation had been passed after proceedings had commenced and which made proceedings against a government authority unnecessary, it was wrong to award indemnity costs the applicant.
Finance Act 1991 - Finance Act 1992
Steele, Ford, and Newton v Crown Prosecution Service and Another etc (Consolidated Appeals) (No 2) Independent, 10 June 1993; Times, 28 May 1993; [1994] 1 AC 22; [1993] 2 All ER 769; [1993] 2 WLR 934
28 May 1993
HL
Lord Bridge
Criminal Practice, Costs, Constitutional
The Court of Appeal Civil Division has no power to make an award of costs out of central funds. The court referred to: "the special constitutional convention which jealously safeguards the exclusive control exercised by Parliament over the levying and the expenditure of the public revenue".
Bridge alluded to the position where a party could not have recourse on costs when he had to come to court to seek relief by way of judicial review due to a misjudgement by an inferior court or tribunal. It is the position under the common law that there are occasions where a successful party may not be able to recover the costs incurred by him in correcting an error of an inferior tribunal.
Lord Chancellor v Wright Independent, 25 June 1993; Times, 10 June 1993
10 Jun 1993
QBD
Costs, Legal Aid
A taxing master when taxing one sides costs may consider the amount paid to counsel on the other (prosecuting) side.
Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (2) Independent, 22 June 1993; Times, 25 June 1993
22 Jun 1993
QBD
Judicial Review, Costs, Legal Aid, Legal Professions
The introduction of a Standard Fees Criminal Legal Aid regime did not require prior consultation with the Law Society. The rules had been imposed in accordance with the words of the enabling statute.
Legal Aid Act 1988 34
Queen v Beckford and Another; PC 30-Jun-1993 - Times, 30 June 1993; (1993) 97 Cr App R 409
Filmlab Systems International Ltd and Another v Pennington and Others Times, 09 July 1993; [1994] 4 All ER Ch D 673
9 Jul 1993
ChD
Aldous J
Litigation Practice, Costs, Legal Professions
In civil litigation an application for a wasted costs order should only save in exceptional circumstances, be made after the trial. The court mentioned several dangers if applications were made at an interlocutory stage, among them the risk that a party's advisers might feel they could no longer act, so that the party could in effect be deprived of the advisers of his choice.
1 Citers
Fozal v Gofur Times, 09 July 1993; Ind Summary, 26 July 1993; [1993] CA Transcript 680
9 Jul 1993
CA
Legal Professions, Litigation Practice, Costs
An order for wasted costs against counsel could only be allowed with respect to acts done after 1 October 1991, with the new rules.
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990$ 4
1 Citers
Holden and Co v Crown Prosecution Service (No 2); Steel Ford and Newton v Crown Prosecution Service and Another (No 2) Gazette, 14 July 1993; [1994] 1 AC 22; [1993] 2 All ER 769; [1993] 2 WLR 934
14 Jul 1993
HL
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Criminal Practice, Costs, Legal Professions
The Court of Appeal had set aside wasted costs orders made in the Crown Court against four different firms of solicitors. Held: The House set aside the orders but was unable to award to the firms their costs of the successful appeals. There is no provision to order costs from Central funds on appeals against costs orders in criminal cases. It was just for a successful litigant, and perhaps a fortiori a successful appellant, to be able to recover his costs from someone, but it was not always so: "it is relatively commonplace for a party who is the victim of a misjudgment by an inferior court or tribunal to have to seek relief by an application for judicial review in circumstances where the Divisional Court cannot hold another party or the inferior tribunal itself liable in costs and there is no power to award costs from public funds."
1 Cites
1 Citers
McDonald and Others v Horn and Others Times, 12 October 1993
12 Oct 1993
ChD
Employment, Costs, Litigation Practice
A pre-emptive costs order is possible where Plaintiffs are impecunious but the case is very strong.
1 Citers
Regina v Coroner for Southern District of Greater London, ex Parte Driscoll [1994] 159 JPR 45; Ind Summ, 22 November 1993; Independent, 11 October 1993; [1994] COD 91
22 Oct 1993
Admn
Kennedy LJ and Pill J
Coroners, Costs
The applicant, a sister of the deceased, requested a judicial review of the decision of the coroner not to allow her to be represented and to cross examine witnesses. Held: One of the coroner's letters had been offensive and misleading. A close blood relative should normally be allowed to be represented. The coroner had erred in taking account of the bad relations between the applicant and the deceased's widow. The route by which the coroner had arrived at his decision was so seriously flawed that the inquest verdict itself ought not to be allowed to stand. The test was whether an applicant's desire to participate went beyond the wish to give relevant evidence and extended to a genuine concern regarding the scope of the inquest with an associated need to put views to witnesses.
As to the costs of the appeal, although one of the two sisters had received emergency legal aid, the other was unlikely to qualify for legal aid. The court identified why it should make a costs order against the coroner: (1) There was some evidence that the coroner had behaved "improperly"; (2) He had defended his decision in court and had therefore entered into the "lis"; and (3) The applicants would have to pay a significant amount of costs themselves if the costs order was not made against the coroner.
Coroners' Rules 1984 20(2)(h)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Nader v Customs and Excise Commissioners Ind Summary, 01 November 1993
1 Nov 1993
CA
Costs
VAT tribunal not within Litigants in Person (Costs & Expenses) Act 1975.
British Waterways Board v Norman; QBD 11-Nov-1993 - Ind Summary, 29 November 1993; Times, 11 November 1993; [1993] 22 HLR 232
A B and Others v John Wyeth and Brothers Ltd and Others Gazette, 16 February 1994; Independent, 15 December 1993; Gazette, 26 January 1994; Times, 01 December 1993; [1994] 5 Med LR 149
15 Dec 1993
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Litigation Practice, Costs
Proceedings claiming damages for the prescription of benzodiazepine were set aside where the possible benefit to the Plaintiffs, even if they succeeded, was vastly outweighed by the costs to the Defendant of defending the action. The court may use a cost benefit analysis to decide on striking out claims. "The court is concerned to see that its proceedings are not used in any way that is oppressive and vexatious to the other party or which involves serious injustice to him. If the court is satisfied that the proceedings do have that effect, it has power to strike out on the grounds that they are vexatious and an abuse of process."
1 Citers
Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd and Another; CA 21-Dec-1993 - Ind Summary, 24 January 1994; Times, 12 January 1994; [1993] EWCA Civ 22; [1995] QB 137; [1994] 4 All ER 464; [1994] CLC 111; 66 BLR 1; [1994] 3 WLR 1179