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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 67 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Atlantic Bar and Grill Ltd v Posthouse Hotels Ltd; 2000 - [2000] CP Rep 32
Davies v Davies [2000] 1 FLR 39
2000
CA
Sir Stephen Brown P, Robert Johnson J
Legal Professions, Costs
The wife had objected to the instruction by her former husband of a solicitor who had been instructed by her some seven years previously. She withdrew her objection, but the court now considered an appeal as regards costs. Held: The court considered the possible subconscious influence on a lawyer having acted before for a party.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Village Residents' Association Ltd v An Bord Pleanala (No 2) [2000] 4 IR 321
2000
Laffoy J
International, Costs, Administrative
(Irish High Court) The court faced the first application for a Protective Costs Order (PCO) in the High Court of Ireland. Held: There was jurisdiction to make such an order, but it was difficult in the abstract to identify the type or types of cases in which the interests of justice would require the court to deal with costs in the manner indicated by a PCO and it would be unwise to attempt to do so. The principles in ex p CPAG seemed to meet the fundamental rubric that the interests of justice should require a PCO to be made. An order was not made in this case.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Murria v Lord Chancellor; QBD 11-Jan-2000 - Times, 11 January 2000; Gazette, 20 January 2000
Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy and Others Times, 19 January 2000; Gazette, 13 January 2000
13 Jan 2000
ChD
Legal Aid, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
Once a legal aid certificate is revoked the party is deemed by statute never to have had the benefit of a legal aid certificate. The rules relating to assessment of costs which applied when a party had legal aid did not therefore apply. An order however which has once been made cannot be varied subsequently by reference to those rules, even if the order was made in the light of them.
Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 130 - Civil Procedure Rules Part 3.1(7)
Barclays Plc v Villers [2000] EWHC 197 (Comm)
25 Jan 2000
ComC
Insurance, Costs
Re-insurers refused to pay the costs re-imbursed by the insurers to the claimant of conducting the defence of a court action, saying that they were excessive. They sought a detailed assessment of the bill. The defendants argued that this matter should be dealt with by arbitration under the terms of the settlement of the main proceedings.
Solicitors Act 1974 71(1)(4)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Society of Lloyd's v Jaffray [2000] EWHC Commercial 174
26 Jan 2000
ComC
Insurance, Costs
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Burgess v British Steel and Another Gazette, 03 February 2000; Times, 29 February 2000
3 Feb 2000
CA
Costs, Personal Injury
The plaintiff had failed to beat a payment in, but the judge refused the defendants their costs after the payment in because a medical report filed before the payment in had accused the claimant of malingering and he claimed to have gone on to disprove that allegation. It was held that this was insufficient to justify departure from the general rule. The malingering had not been the central issue, and that could be dealt with by apportioning the costs between the issues.
Diacou v Staden [2000] EWHC 9003 (Costs)
4 Feb 2000
SCCO
Costs
[ Bailii ]
Morris v The Lord Chancellor [2000] EWHC 9001 (Costs)
4 Feb 2000
SCCO
Costs
[ Bailii ]
Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (In Receivership) v Koshy and Others Times, 08 February 2000; Gazette, 16 March 2000
8 Feb 2000
ChD
Insolvency, Costs
A company could give several people the power to appoint a receiver in respect of different elements of its assets. If this was done there was no fundamental reason why such appointments should not be put in effect. The appointment of one receiver did not, in the absence of explicit limitations to the contrary exhaust the power to appoint receivers.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Picnic At Ascot v Derigs and Others [2000] EWHC Ch 1568
9 Feb 2000
ChD
Neuberger J
Costs
Costs of interlocutory relief application
[ Bailii ]
Maes Finance Ltd and Another v W G Edwards and Partners and Another (2) No 2 of 2000
11 Feb 2000
SCCO
Mr Justice Elias Sitting with Assessors
Costs
1 Cites
Maes Finance Ltd and Another v W G Edwards and Partners and Another (1) 6 of 200
11 Feb 2000
SCCO
Mr Justice Elias
Costs
The judge was asked to consider whether the principles in Eastwood were now out of date with regards to the relative costs of employing in house solicitors, as against an outside firm. Held: The principles in Eastwood still held, and were binding. In calculating the 'A' element of costs for an in-house solicitor, the appropriate approach was to follow the same method as would be applied in the case of an independent solicitor.
1 Cites
Sony Music Entertainment Inc and another v Prestige Records Ltd and another; ChD 17-Feb-2000 - Gazette, 17 February 2000; Times, 02 March 2000
Levy v Legal Aid Board Gazette, 24 February 2000; Gazette, 16 March 2000
24 Feb 2000
ChD
Costs, Legal Aid, Insolvency
Although an order for costs might in some circumstances not be provable in an insolvency, that did not prevent a statutory demand based upon that debt. Whether it was provable would become clear in the later insolvency proceedings. The court had a discretion to found a petition on an unproveable debt where there were special circumstances such as, for example other debts which were provable.
Insolvency Rules 1986/1925 12 3 (2) (a)
Flynn v Robin Thompson and Another [2000] EWHC 9004 (Costs)
25 Feb 2000
SCCO
Costs
[ Bailii ]
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd and Others (No 3); ChD 29-Feb-2000 - Times, 29 February 2000; [1999] EWHC 261 (Ch)
Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Liquidation) v Ali and Others (No 4); CA 2-Mar-2000 - Times, 02 March 2000; [2000] ICR 1410
B Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care EAT/125/97
9 Mar 2000
EAT
The Honourable Mr Justice Charles
Employment, Costs
EAT Unfair Dismissal - Reason for Dismissal
1 Cites
Mealing Mcleod v Common Professional Examination Board [2000] EWHC 9007 (Costs)
13 Mar 2000
SCCO
Costs, Legal Professions
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Leyvand v Barasch and Others Gazette, 16 March 2000; Times, 23 March 2000
16 Mar 2000
ChD
Costs, Litigation Practice
In a partnership dispute the defendants sought an order for security for costs against the claimant, saying that he was ordinarily resident abroad. It was held that under the new regime such an order would not follow as a matter of course. The sole test was what was the just in the particular case. The existence of assets within the jurisdiction was relevant, and in this case the claimant had lived for a long time here, and had substantial assets here, and such an order was unnecessary.
Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (In Receivership) v Koshy and Others (No 2) Times, 30 March 2000
30 Mar 2000
ChD
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The new Civil Procedure Rules had not substantially affected the rules on costs following the event of a trial. The discretion in a judge as to the order for costs had been correctly stated in Elgindata, and approved in Phonographic Performance Ltd v AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Cormack and Another v Washbourne, Formerly Trading As Washbourne and Co (A Firm) Times, 30 March 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000
30 Mar 2000
CA
Costs, Professional Negligence, Insurance
Where a claimant succeeded in his claim against a party, it was wrong to award costs against an insurer third party who had supported the defence where such costs exceeded the limit of liability under the financial limit of the indemnity. The insurer had been given conduct of the litigation, and only at a late stage informed the claimant of the limit on indemnity, and after the costs already exceeded that limit. Were these circumstances exceptional? No, the action of the insurers was not sufficiently self-motivated, and had been in good faith.
Armitage v Nurse [2000] EWHC 9008 (Costs)
11 Apr 2000
SCCO
Costs
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
In Re Hickman and Rose (Solicitors) (Wasted Costs Order) (No 10 of 1999) Times, 03 May 2000
19 Apr 2000
CACD
Lord Justice Clarke Mr Justice Kay And The Recorder Of Bristol His Honour Judge Dyer
Legal Professions, Costs
After a trial was aborted, the solicitors, acting on counsel's advice made an application for bail under the rules applying to the custody time limits. An unreported case had already decided the point, namely that once the jury had ben sworn, the limits ceased to apply. Though counsel, once told of the decision sought to withdraw the application, the solicitors were ordered to pay the costs of the application personally. Held: The order was set aside. It could not be said that the solicitors had acted improperly unreasonably or negligently. On such appeals it is important for those applying to make available transcripts of the events at the lower court.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19A
1 Cites
Regina v Common Professional Examination Board, Ex Parte Mealing-Mcclead Times, 02 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 138
19 Apr 2000
CA
Costs, Legal Professions, Banking
A party was required to pay money into court before pursuing an appeal. She borrowed money for this purpose but on the express condition that it should be used for this purpose only and was not to become part of her general assets. The money was paid into court, but the appeal was compromised in her favour. The judge ordered payment out to her opponent, to satisfy earlier unsatisfied costs orders. Her request for leave to appeal succeeded. The trust was as between her and the bank, and no need of others being notified arose. As trustee for the bank, she had a duty to act to recover it, and so had locus standi.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Johnson v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Times, 20 April 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000
20 Apr 2000
QBD
Criminal Practice, Costs
A defendant appealed to the Crown Court against a conviction for causing unnecessary suffering to animals. Her appeal was dismissed, and the Crown Court awarded also the full costs of the prosecution before the magistrates, who had made a reduced award of costs. Though there was no right of appeal on a question of costs, the Crown Court had sufficient power to make an order. A prosecutor seeking a variation should make his intention clear, and set out his reasons.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 18(1) - Supreme Court Act 1981 48(2)
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth [2000] EWHC Admin 444; (2000) 164 JP 485; [2001] LLR 151; (2001) 3 LGLR 8; [2000] COD 338
10 May 2000
Admn
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Silber J
Magistrates, Costs
Lord Bingham set out guidance in respect of costs awarded by magistrates pursuant to section 64(1) of the 1980 Act, saying: "I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised in three propositions: 1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates' court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them. 2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection. 3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour, and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged."
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth Times, 31 May 2000; (2000) COD 338; (2000) 164 JP 485
10 May 2000
QBD
Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Magistrates, Local Government, Costs, Licensing
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed. Held: The discretion given to magistrates to award such costs as it feels are just and reasonable does not mean that costs should always and normally follow the event. An authority with a duty to make decisions which suffered a successful challenge to that decision, but where the fault in the decision fell short of being unreasonable, dishonest, or improper, should not normally be ordered to pay the costs. The financial effect on the parties should be assessed, but such challenges are part of the expense of running a business. Section 64 was concerned with both liability for costs and their amount. The only statutory restriction on the power of the magistrates was that they could not make an order for costs against a successful party.
Bingham CJ said: "The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith."
Later he continued "It seems to me that the justices in this case misdirected themselves, first, in relying on a principle that costs should follow the event, that misdirection being compounded by their view that the reference in section 64 to the order being just and reasonable applied to quantum only. On the other hand, in my judgment the submissions made by Mr Blair-Gould on behalf of the local authority go too far the other way since to give effect to the principle for which he contends would deprive the justices of any discretion to view the case in the round which is in my judgment what section 64 intends.
I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised is three propositions:
1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates' court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them.
2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection.
3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour; and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged."
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1) - Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 62(1)(b)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Anthony v Ellis and Fairbairn (A Firm) [2000] EWHC 9009 (Costs); [2002] 2 Costs LR 277
12 May 2000
SCCO
Sir Oliver Popplewell
Costs
The court considered a solicitor's bill which vastly exceeded the estimate given.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
HM Customs and Excise v City of London Magistrates' Court and Others [2000] EWHC 653 (Admin); [2000] Crim LR 841; [2000] 1 WLR 2020; [2000] 4 All ER 763; [2000] 2 Cr App Rep 348; [2000] STC 447; [2000] 2 Cr App R 348; [2000] BTC 5194; [2000] STI 782; [2000] BVC 224
17 May 2000
Admn
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Morison J
Costs
HMCE appealed by case stated from an order for costs made against it. It had applied for orders for access to three banks and a public limited company. On the orders being made, the court allowed costs against HMCE for the third parties involved, under the 1985 Act and 1986 Regulations. HMCE said that the applications were not criminal in nature, and that therefore the Magistrate had not had the power to make the order for costs. Held: The application was not a criminal proceeding: " Even if it be accepted that it was a proceeding, it is in my judgment quite plain that it was not a criminal proceeding for the reasons given by the Customs. Although the respondents were suspected of criminal offences, no formal accusation had been made against any of them on behalf of the state or any private prosecutor and there were no proceedings in being which could have led to the conviction of the respondents of any breach of the criminal law or to their condemnation. In my judgment the only answer which can be given to the question posed is "No"."
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19 - Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 3
[ Bailii ]
RM Broudie and Co v The Lord Chancellor [2000] EWHC 9010 (Costs)
17 May 2000
SCCO
Costs
[ Bailii ]
Arklow Investments Ltd v Maclean (Unreported) 19 May 2000
19 May 2000
Fisher J
Costs, Company
(High Court of New Zealand) The court considered the potential personal responsibility of a directors for costs incurred by the company in litigation: "Where a person is a major shareholder and dominant director in a company which brings proceedings, that alone will not justify a third party costs order. Something additional is normally warranted as a matter of discretion. The critical element will often be a fresh injection of capital for the known purpose of funding litigation . . the overall rationale [is] that it is wrong to allow someone to fund litigation in the hope of gaining a benefit without a corresponding risk that that person will share in the costs of the proceedings if they ultimately fail."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd Times, 14 June 2000; [2001] 4 All ER 853; [2002] 1 WLR 947
23 May 2000
CA
Lord Woolf MR
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
Where a defendant failed to beat a claimant's part 36 offer to settle, but judgment was given summarily the rule did not mean that the defendant was necessarily to be ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis, and to pay interest. Summary judgment did not involve a trial as required by the rule, and the early and relatively cheap settlement indicated the absence of need for such a rule. Nevertheless a court retained a discretion to make such an award.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 36.21
1 Citers
Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 512; [2002] 1 Costs LR; [2002] 1 WLR 947; [2001] 4 All ER,
23 May 2000
CA
Costs
[ Bailii ]
Petrograde Inc v Texaco Ltd Unreported, 23 May 2000
23 May 2000
CA
Lord Woolf MR
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The award of costs under Rule 36.21 on an indemnity basis is not intended to be penal, and the court must look at what was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Lord Woolf said: "However, it would be wrong to regard the rule [36.21] as producing penal consequences. An order for indemnity costs does not enable a claimant to receive more costs than he has incurred. Its practical effect is to avoid his costs being assessed at a lesser figure. When assessing costs on the standard basis the court will only allow costs `which are proportionate to the matters in issue' and `resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably incurred or reasonably proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party'. On the other hand, where the costs are assessed on an indemnity basis, the issue of proportionality does not have to be considered. The court only considers whether the costs were unreasonably incurred or for an unreasonable amount. The court will then resolve any doubt in favour of the receiving party. Even on an indemnity basis, however, the receiving party is restricted to recovering only the amount of costs which have been incurred (see Part 44.3 and Part 44.5).
The ability of the court to award costs on an indemnity basis and interest at an enhanced rate should not be regarded as penal because orders for costs, even when made on an indemnity basis, never actually compensate a claimant for having to come to court to bring proceedings. . . The power to order indemnity costs or higher rate interest is a means of achieving a fairer result for a claimant. If a defendant involves a claimant in proceedings after an offer has been made, and in the event, the result is no more favourable to the defendant than that which would have been achieved if the claimant's offer had been accepted without the need for those proceedings, the message of Part 36.21 is that, prima facie, it is just to make an indemnity order for costs and for interest at an enhanced rate to be awarded. However, the indemnity order need not be for the entire proceedings nor, as I have already indicated, need the award of interest be for a particular period or at a particular rate. It must not however exceed the figure of 10 per cent referred to in Part 36."
Civil Procedure Rules 36.21
1 Citers
Paragon Finance Ltd v King [2000] EWHC 9011 (Costs)
26 May 2000
SCCO
Costs
[ Bailii ]
Mirror Group Newspapers Plc v Maxwell and Others; ChD 30-May-2000 - Times, 30 May 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000
Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, Regina (On the Application of) v Coventry Crown Court [2000] EWHC 648 (Admin); [2001] LLR 144
6 Jun 2000
Admn
Munby J
Police, Licensing, Costs
The Chief Constable sought judicial review of the award against him of costs after a successful appeal against the revocation of a justices' on-licence for premises in Coventry. The initial revocation had followed the cautioning of members of the licencee's family, but not the licensee, after drugs had been found on searching the premises. The Chief constable said that he had not acted unreasonably or in bad failth, and the judgment on the successful appeal had contained no criticism. Held: The request for judicial review succeeded. The judge at the crown court had been wrong to award costs. The judge had not wanted to criticise the police action publicly, but that was inappropriate, but even had the reasons been given they would have fallen short of the level of disapproval required before making an award of costs.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Pitchmastic Plc v Birse Construction Ltd Gazette, 08 June 2000; Times, 21 June 2000
8 Jun 2000
QBD
Litigation Practice, Costs, Litigation Practice
A party to litigation made an offer on the day before trial of settlement without prejudice save as to costs. At trial it made an open offer in similar terms which was rejected. After reading a draft unfavourable judgment, the party applied to be allowed to accept the offer, contending that such an offer was to remain open for 21 days in any event. The rules allowed a party to withdraw such an offer, and such situations must be decided by ordinary rules of offer and acceptance. The rules which apply to acceptance of a payment in do not necessarily apply to offers to settle. There is no rule requiring the permission of the court before allowing the withdrawal of an offer of settlement, and the test for whether such an offer remained capable of acceptance was the normal one of offer and acceptance.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 36
Hornsby v Clarke Kenneth Leventhal (A Firm) [2000] EWHC 9012 (Costs)
16 Jun 2000
SCCO
Costs
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Richard John Cole v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] EWCA Civ 208
4 Jul 2000
CA
Costs
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Cole v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] EWHC 9014 (Costs)
4 Jul 2000
SCCO
Costs
[ Bailii ]
Euromarket Designs Incorporated v Peters and Another [2001] FSR 20; [2000] ETMR 1025; [2000] EWHC 453 (Ch)
25 Jul 2000
ChD
Jacob J
Costs, Intellectual Property
Reasons for costs award after rejection of claim for summary judgment.
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Lands Tribunal, Ex Parte Jafton Properties Ltd; COL 31-Jul-2000 - Gazette, 31 August 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 384
Bunzl v Martin Bunzl International Ltd and Others Times, 19 September 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000
3 Aug 2000
ChD
European, Costs, International
Security for costs had been ordered against a Swiss resident claimant. Although Switzerland is not in the EU or in the EEA and therefore rules against discrimination against nationals of member states did not apply, Switzerland was still a signatory to the Brussels and Lugano Conventions for enforcement of judgments. The discretion to require security for costs was slightly wider a regards a Swiss national, but the court should still general follow the rule in Fitzgerald. Orders for security for costs against nationals of other EU member states were discriminatory.
D'Abo v Paget and Others (No 2) Gazette, 05 October 2000; Times, 10 August 2000
10 Aug 2000
ChD
Trusts, Wills and Probate, Costs
Where a beneficiary having brought successful action against the trust fund, the rule in In re Buckton should still apply, but where the trustees could have brought the same action themselves, and had been ready and willing to do so, the beneficiary should not be awarded costs out of the trust fund. Under the new procedure, the court should take a more robust attitude to such claims. In effect the sole reason for the claimant's participation was to make a claim for costs if the trustees failed.
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd); CA 17-Aug-2000 - Times, 17 August 2000
In Re Burfoot and Another (Bankrupts) Times, 17 August 2000
17 Aug 2000
ChD
Insolvency, Costs
A general followed by a specific assignment of book debts anticipating a bankruptcy was effective against the trustee in bankruptcy. The specific assignments were not for an undervalue, and were intended to give effect to and perfect the general assignment. The transactions would have effective in the reverse order, and should not be avoided. The assignee having failed to say how much was at stake despite repeated requests could not rely upon an assertion that he was under no obligation to disclose the figure to recover his costs despite winning the argument.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Another v Arum Marketing Ltd and Another; CA 31-Aug-2000 - Gazette, 31 August 2000
Regina v South Yorkshire Police Authority Ex Parte Booth Times, 10 October 2000
10 Oct 2000
QBD
Police, Employment, Costs
There is no power in law for a police authority to fund payment of legal expenses incurred by an officer of the rank of Superintendent or below when defending disciplinary proceedings. The statutory code was not displaced by the Duckinfield case. The Regulations and Act were clear in restricting such assistance to appeals against disciplinary findings, and to proceedings against senior officers.
Police Act 1996 - Police (Conduct) Senior Officer Regulations 1999 (1999 No 731)
Macdougall and others v Boote Edgar Esterkin [2000] EWHC 9015 (Costs)
12 Oct 2000
SCCO
Costs
[ Bailii ]
Practice Direction (Family Proceedings Costs) Times, 24 October 2000
24 Oct 2000
FD
Family, Costs
New and future practice directions as to costs under the Civil Procedure Rules should be applied as appropriate to family proceedings and proceedings in the Family Division. The significant difference remained as to systems of funding, and it remains the case that enforceable conditional fee arrangements will not apply in family cases.
Matthews v Dorkin and Motor Insurers Bureau [2000] EWHC 9016 (Costs)
26 Oct 2000
SCCO
Costs
[ Bailii ]
Hicks v Russell Jones and Walker Unreported, 27 October 2000
27 Oct 2000
Robert Walker LJ
Costs, Legal Aid
1 Citers
In Re A Debtor (2672 of 2000); ChD 2-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 02 November 2000; Times, 05 December 2000
Lewis v Commissioner of Inland Revenue and others Gazette, 30 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 274; [2001] 3 All ER 499
2 Nov 2000
CA
Peter Gibson LJ
Insolvency, Company, Costs
The liquidator in a creditor's voluntary liquidation sought a direction that he could take his costs of pursuing former directors in actions for wrongful trading and preferences, out of realised funds. It was held that nothing in the rules or Act supported the contention that such costs would be expenses of the voluntary winding up. There was no automatic priority of such expenses over preferential creditors, and the liquidator must look to the court's discretion to recover any such costs."Rule 4.218 tells us both what are the expenses to be treated as the expenses of a winding up and what priority they have inter se."
Insolvency Act 1986 - Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986 No 1925) 4.218(1) 4.220(1)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Winter v Winter November 10, 2000, unreported
10 Nov 2000
CA
Brooke LJ
Family, Costs
Brooke LJ said: "before the Civil Procedure Rules came into effect . . if a claimant substantially succeeded he was likely to be awarded an order for costs even though he failed on certain issues. The new Rules provide a break from that tradition and enable a court to do greater justice if a party has caused court costs to be expended on an issue on which he ultimately fails."
1 Citers
Cullen v Freed and others [2000] EWHC 9017 (Costs)
10 Nov 2000
SCCO
Costs
[ Bailii ]
Ward and others v Sabherwal and others T/A Nath Bros. [2000] NIQB 54; [2000] NIEHC 54
13 Nov 2000
QBNI
Northern Ireland, Costs
1 Cites
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Amber v Stacey; CA 15-Nov-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 286; [2001] 2 All ER
A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees); FD 15-Nov-2000 - Times, 15 November 2000; Gazette, 16 November 2000; [2001] 1 FLR 377
Medcalf v Mardell and Others Times, 02 January 2001; Gazette, 01 February 2001
24 Nov 2000
CA
Legal Professions, Costs
Counsel who wished to insert an allegation of fraudulent activity, or similar, into an application to amend a notice of appeal, must be sure not only that they have the clear and direct instructions of the clients to do this, but also that they found available material to justify the allegation in a format in which it could be produced to court in evidence. Where such material was unavailable because the client declined to waive confidence, counsel was at risk of a wasted costs order. Counsel are immune from defamation for such matters, and accordingly must behave responsibly.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Antonelli v Allen and Another Times, 08 December 2000
8 Dec 2000
ChD
Costs
When a court considered the apportionment of costs, where the claimant was successful but only in respect of some of the heads of claim, the court should consider the following: the reasonableness of the successful party in taking the points on which he was unsuccessful, the way in which he took the point and the manner in which he conducted the case, the reasonableness of taking the point in the circumstances, the extra time taken and costs caused, the inter-relationship of the various points, and the justice in all the circumstances, of depriving the successful party of his costs either entirely or in part.
1 Citers
Amoco (UK) Exploration Company and others v British American Offshore Ltd [2000] EWHC 212 (Comm)
12 Dec 2000
ComC
Langley J
Costs
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
A Local Authority v A Mother and Child; CA 20-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 339
