The landlord sought an injunction against the defendant. The defendant countered, relying upon sec 2(1). Held: The remedy provided by the section was limited to the award of damages. It could not, therefore, be used to defend an action for an injunction. Whilst he might be entitled in equity to repudiate the lease, he could … Continue reading Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney: ChD 27 May 2002
The normal rules as to costs contained in the CPR should also be followed in probate actions save only that the judge should also take account of the guidance in the Spiers case, where an alternative costs order might be made if the testator or those interested in the residue had been the cause of … Continue reading In re Good, deceased; Carapeto v Good and Others: ChD 19 Apr 2002
The claimant appealed against the level of costs awarded to him in succeeding in his claim for damages for personal injury following a road traffic accident. The court had found that though the claimant had succeeded, the substantial dispute had been as to the level of damages where he had been less successful, and had … Continue reading Gregson v Hussein, CIS Insurance: CA 9 Feb 2010
Walker v Wilshire still Good Law After successfully appealing, the defendant claimant argued for a substantial part of its costs, saying that the defendant had unreasonably refused ADR. To pursue this, it now sought disclosure of the details of the without prejudice negotiations between them. Held: No distinction is to be made between party-to-party negotiations … Continue reading Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs.Com Ltd: CA 14 Jul 2004
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous meetings. Held: The finding of a breach of confidence against the applicant amounted to an … Continue reading MGN Limited v United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Jan 2011
The respondent operated a web site which contained a chat room. Defamatory remarks were made by a third party through the chat room, and the claimant sought details of the identity of the poster. The respondent refused to do so without a court order. One was applied for, and the claimant was given the information … Continue reading Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2): CA 19 Dec 2001
The court considered how orders for costs were to be made in ‘big money’ cases.
Held: There were two sets of rules. Cases should be considered by first applying the Civil Procedure Rules. This would allow the court to consider the full range . .
‘The thinking behind the CPR was that they would speak for themselves and that courts would not have to refer to an ever increasing body of authority in order to apply them.’ . .
A copyright infringement case had been settled, but the court was to quantify and apportion costs. Some andpound;700,000 having been spent when the damages amounted to andpound;10,000.
Held: Denne did not oust the court’s jurisdiction to hear . .
The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants.
Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to . .
After a substantial personal injury case, the parties now disputed who should bear the costs of the costs assessment which had itself lasted 8 days.
Held: Though the defendant had indeed managed to achieve a reduction in its liability on . .
The claimants appealed against a reduction in their costs awards after succeeding in their claims arising from road traffic incidents. The judge had awarded them only 60% of their costs and they appealed submitting that there was no reason why they . .
Each side had succeeded in part on their claims and counterclaims, but the Respondent was andpound;5,000 out of pocket. Each party had been ordered to pay the costs of the other.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had correctly recognised . .
The appellant sought permission to appeal out of time against a costs order. The claimant said he had submitted a notice of appeal, but the court had no trace of it, and the cheque had not been encashed.
Held: Looking at the merits of the . .
It had been argued by the claimant in written submissions (although not maintained orally) that an order for payment of pre-judgment interest on costs should never be made. As to an award of interest on costs:- ‘In any event in principle there seems . .
The defendant appealed an order that it should pay interest on the costs of the claimant from a date in 1994 when interim judgement had been given, even though damages were finally assessed only in 2001, and the costs had not yet been incurred.
The defendant firm of solicitors appealed an order for costs against it based upon a percentage calculation. They sought an issues based costs order.
Held: Where there was insufficient information upon which to calculate an issues based costs . .
The claimant had won her case, but been deprived of her costs. She claimed for conversion after she had purchased a car without knowledge of it having been on hire purchase, and after it was seized by the finance company. The judge had considered . .
When a claimant commenced litigating several issues, but succeeded only on some of the them, the rule allowing an award of costs to the generally successful party was not dependent upon questions of whether the party was reasonable to have raised . .
The personal injury claimant sought to raise on taxation, matters not put to the trial judge when making the costs order. The personal injuries case had been allocated to the multi-track. The judge at trial had awarded costs on the standard basis, but the costs judge had assessed them as if the case had been … Continue reading Drew v Whitbread: CA 9 Feb 2010
The court considered the effect on costs orders of a refusal to take part in alternate dispute resolution procedures. The defendant Trust had refused to take the dispute to a mediation. In neither case had the court ordered or recommended ADR. Held: If the parties (or at least one of them) remain intransigently opposed to … Continue reading Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc: CA 11 May 2004
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of moral condemnation was required. The defendant had made … Continue reading Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor: CA 2002
Following its earlier main judgment in the case, the court made use of the CPR to award costs on an appeal. The overall result had been that the patent was found to be valid but not infringed. There had been huge costs. Smithkline sought costs on an indemnity basis, saying the court had certified the … Continue reading Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others: CA 16 Dec 2004
The solicitor had successfully appealed against an order for a contribution to the other party’s legal costs, after his clerk had filed statements in court which he knew to be misleading. The solicitor’s appeal had been successful. Held: The Court of Appeal’s decision was reversed. The plaintiff was not asking the court to exercise its … Continue reading Myers v Elman: HL 1939
Application made pursuant to CPR 3.9 for relief from sanctions imposed under the rules, in this instance CPR rule 44.3B. . .
The defendants had started but abandoned a request against third parties, and had to pay their costs. It now sought those and its own costs from the claimant, saying that the abortive application would have been unnecessary had the claimant complied . .
The claimant licensee alleged that the license contract had been repudiated by the defendant licensor. The claimant succeeded at the trial of liability. The defendant had made a payment into court. The judge was told of the payment but not of the . .
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 . .
The procedure for making a wasted costs order was primarily compensatory, for costs wasted, rather than punitive for malpractice. The procedure is summary, and more in line with applications for costs made under the Civil Procedure Rules rule 44.3, . .