Click the case name for better results:

Saleem v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 13 Jun 2000

A rule which deemed service on an asylum applicant two days after postage of a special adjudicator’s determination irrespective of whether it was in fact received was outside the powers given to the Secretary, and is of no effect. The Act gave power to make rules, but the receipt of the determination was fundamental to … Continue reading Saleem v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 13 Jun 2000

Environment Agency v Lewin Fryer and Partners: TCC 6 Jul 2006

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 with its own disclosure obligations. The claimant said the court did not have jurisdiction … Continue reading Environment Agency v Lewin Fryer and Partners: TCC 6 Jul 2006

Tasyurdu v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 Mar 2003

The case was listed to be heard on the Monday. On the Friday before it had been settled. The court complained of the lawyers that they had not informed the court, and that consequently much of the judge’s time over the weekend had been wasted in preparatrion. The parties must recognise that a judge would … Continue reading Tasyurdu v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 Mar 2003

Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership: CA 31 Jul 2002

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 order, it could be appropriate to make a percentage based order under subsection (f). Whilst issues based … Continue reading Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership: CA 31 Jul 2002

Butt, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Indemnity Costs): UTIAC 4 Feb 2022

Whilst no mention of the basis of costs assessment is made in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 or the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the distinction drawn between the standard and indemnity bases by CPR 44.3(1) can properly inform the exercise of discretion by the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper … Continue reading Butt, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Indemnity Costs): UTIAC 4 Feb 2022

Practice Note (Court of Appeal Civil Division: Assessment of Costs): CA 26 Apr 1999

The Court of Appeal will normally identify in advance those cases where it expected to apply a summary assessment of costs and at which a statement of costs would be required, though parties may propose such an assessment. Citations: Times 26-Apr-1999 Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules Part 44 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 11 … Continue reading Practice Note (Court of Appeal Civil Division: Assessment of Costs): CA 26 Apr 1999

A (a Patient) v A Health Authority and Others; In re J (a Child); Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 24 Jan 2002

The case asked how cases involving disputes as to the care of children, and of the treatment of adults claimed to be mentally incompetent. Where the issues were solely ones of public law, then they should be heard by way of judicial review in the QBD. Where any private law issues arose, they should be … Continue reading A (a Patient) v A Health Authority and Others; In re J (a Child); Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 24 Jan 2002

Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 21 Mar 2007

Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own request refused but that of his family had … Continue reading Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 21 Mar 2007

Grace, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Jun 2014

What is ‘totally without merit’? The claimant had sought judicial review. Her case had been certified as being ‘totally without merit’, thus denying to her any opportunity to renew her application for leave at an oral hearing, leaving only recourse to a judge of the Court of Appeal to consider the papers and decide whether … Continue reading Grace, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Jun 2014

Regina v North Humberside and Scunthorpe Coroner ex parte Jamieson: CA 27 Apr 1994

The deceased prisoner had hanged himself. He had been a known suicide risk, and his brother said that the authorities being so aware, the death resulted from their lack of care. The inquest heard in full the circumstannces leading up to the death, but the Coroner directed the jury not to return a verdict which … Continue reading Regina v North Humberside and Scunthorpe Coroner ex parte Jamieson: CA 27 Apr 1994

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004

The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004

Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF: HL 31 Oct 2007

Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square mile area, and had … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF: HL 31 Oct 2007

MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd: ChD 28 Dec 2000

It was wrong to deprive a party of his costs because only of his failure to serve an appropriate schedule of costs at least 24 hours before the summary assessment hearing. The court should consider first, a brief adjournment, and second whether the case should be stood over for a detailed assessment, and third whether … Continue reading MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd: ChD 28 Dec 2000

McLaughlin v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co. Ltd: 15 Jul 1904

(High Court of Australia) The court considered the law on the effect of mental incapacity on a contract in the two cases Imperial Loan, and Molton v Camroux: ‘The principle of the decision seems, however, to be the same in both cases, which, in our judgment, establish that a contract made by a person actually … Continue reading McLaughlin v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co. Ltd: 15 Jul 1904

Amec Process and Energy Ltd v Stork Engineers and Contractors Bv (A Company Registered In the Netherlands) (No 3): 15 Mar 2002

Citations: Unreported, 15 March 2002 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Sisu Capital Fund Ltd and others v Tucker and others 28-Oct-2005 The Defendants were accountants who had been sued through their partnership in KPMG. They had been granted a order for their costs. They sought payment for the time they had spent … Continue reading Amec Process and Energy Ltd v Stork Engineers and Contractors Bv (A Company Registered In the Netherlands) (No 3): 15 Mar 2002

King v Telegraph Group Ltd: CA 18 May 2004

The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation. Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being represented under a conditional fee agreement. The court considered that the amount of costs being incurred served to act … Continue reading King v Telegraph Group Ltd: CA 18 May 2004

Expandable Ltd and Another v Rubin: CA 11 Feb 2008

The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure. Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional privilege, and its mention in a statement did not automatically amount to waiver of that privilege. The rules referred … Continue reading Expandable Ltd and Another v Rubin: CA 11 Feb 2008

Crosbie v Munroe, Motor Insurer’s Bureau: CA 14 Mar 2003

The claim had been settled before action, and costs only proceedings had been instigated. He appealed a decision as to the award of costs in that case. The question was whether the phrase ‘the proceedings which gave rise to the assessment proceedings’ referred to the only actual proceedings, the costs claim, or to the settled … Continue reading Crosbie v Munroe, Motor Insurer’s Bureau: CA 14 Mar 2003

BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer and Sons Ltd: CA 11 Jul 2003

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 an appeal. It is not open to the appellant to complain that the judge set out to do … Continue reading BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer and Sons Ltd: CA 11 Jul 2003

Regina (Smith, Trevor) v Parole Board: CA 30 Jun 2003

The applicant had been granted leave to present a petition for judicial review, but on certain grounds only. On the hearing, he sought again to present the case including the grounds upon which permission had not been granted. Held: The judge who heard the substantive application could hear an application based additionally upon grounds rejecetd … Continue reading Regina (Smith, Trevor) v Parole Board: CA 30 Jun 2003

Oleksandr Volkov v Ukraine: ECHR 9 Jan 2013

ECHR Article 6Civil proceedingsArticle 6-1Impartial tribunalIndependent tribunalStructural defects of the system of judicial discipline: violationFair hearingAbsence of limitation period for imposing disciplinary penalty on judges and abuse of electronic vote system in Parliament when adopting decision on judge’s dismissal: violationsTribunal established by lawComposition of chamber examining applicant’s case defined by a judge whose term of … Continue reading Oleksandr Volkov v Ukraine: ECHR 9 Jan 2013

Baird v Moule’s Patent Earth Closet Co Ltd: CA 3 Feb 1876

Where a patentee sues for infringement and then discontinues his claim against the alleged infringer and consents to the revocation of his patent, he may yet require the alleged infringer to pay a substantial proportion of his costs if he can show that this situation came about because the alleged infringer had amended his defence … Continue reading Baird v Moule’s Patent Earth Closet Co Ltd: CA 3 Feb 1876

Beresford v Sovereign House Estates and Another: EAT 29 Nov 2011

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Parties The Claimant brought proceedings against the First Respondents under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, partly arising out of alleged harassment by the Appellant, a former colleague. She advanced no claim against the Appellant and made it clear that she had no wish to do so; but the First Respondents … Continue reading Beresford v Sovereign House Estates and Another: EAT 29 Nov 2011

University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others: ChD 14 Dec 2004

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 have been able to establish whether it was proper … Continue reading University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others: ChD 14 Dec 2004

Phoenix Finance Limited v Federation Internationale De L’automobile, Formula One Management Limited, Formula One Administration Limited: ChD 22 May 2002

The claimant had purchased the interests of a failed Formula One car racing team, including, it said, the right to enter a team in Formula One races. It claimed to have been unlawfully excluded from racing. Held: The claimant had failed to comply with the requirements imposed upon participants, and was not entitled to race. … Continue reading Phoenix Finance Limited v Federation Internationale De L’automobile, Formula One Management Limited, Formula One Administration Limited: ChD 22 May 2002

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Namli and Another: CA 29 Nov 2011

An application was made to vary a disclosure order. The application raised a question as to the scope of CPR Part 33.6 and the relationship between that provision, Part 31.5(2) and Part 31.19, and the exercise of the powers conferred on the Court by Part 31.5(2) and Part 31.19. Held: CPR 31.5(2) empowers the court … Continue reading Serious Organised Crime Agency v Namli and Another: CA 29 Nov 2011

Fresenius Kabi Deutschland Gmbh and Others v Carefusion 303 Inc: CA 8 Nov 2011

The parties had litigated the validity of a patent. Judges: Lord Neuberger MR, Aikens, Lewison LJJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 1288 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Baird v Moule’s Patent Earth Closet Co Ltd CA 3-Feb-1876 Where a patentee sues for infringement and then discontinues his claim against the alleged infringer … Continue reading Fresenius Kabi Deutschland Gmbh and Others v Carefusion 303 Inc: CA 8 Nov 2011

London Borough of Barnet v Hurst: CA 17 Jul 2002

The applicant had been sentenced to nine months imprisonment for having broken his undertaking to the Court. He appealed against that sentence. The other party also sought to appeal other parts of the order. Held: An appeal limited to the sentencing part of a committal for contempt did not require leave to appeal, being as … Continue reading London Borough of Barnet v Hurst: CA 17 Jul 2002

Williams and Another v Hinton and Another: CA 14 Oct 2011

The appellant landlords appealed against the award of damages to their former tenants under the 1985 and 1972 Acts. The judge had proceeded to hear the case in their absence. Held: The court considered whether the appellants should instead have applied to have the judgments set aside. Judges: Moore-Bick, Gross LJJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ … Continue reading Williams and Another v Hinton and Another: CA 14 Oct 2011

Dunnett v Railtrack plc: CA 22 Feb 2002

The claimant had appealed a judgment against her. The court itself recommended that the parties use a method of alternate dispute resolution, to avoid the need for appeal. The defendant refused, not wishing to make any payment over and above the offer it had already made. Held: The defendant, otherwise successful on appeal, should be … Continue reading Dunnett v Railtrack plc: CA 22 Feb 2002

Solomon v Cromwell Group Plc: CA 19 Dec 2011

Common issues relating to the construction of Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules and its inter-action with Part 44, which contains general rules about costs, and Section II of Part 45, which contains rules about costs in certain kinds of road traffic accident claims. Judges: Pill, Moore-Bick, Aikens LJJ, Hurst SCJ Citations: [2011] EWCA … Continue reading Solomon v Cromwell Group Plc: CA 19 Dec 2011

Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others: QBD 26 May 2011

The defendant, having been sued for defamation by the claimant social worker pleaded justification and now sought third party disclosure against the hospital involved and against the police of documents which might support the stories it had published. Judges: Eady J Citations: [2011] EWHC 1364 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 31.17 Defamation, Civil … Continue reading Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others: QBD 26 May 2011

Revenue and Customs v Blue Sphere Global Ltd: CA 16 Dec 2010

The respondent having successfully defended the claim by the Revenue, now sought its costs on an indemnity basis having made a Part 36 offer. The Revenue responded that Part 36 did not apply to such claims. Judges: Carnwath , Moses LJJ Citations: [2010] EWCA Civ 1448, [2011] STC 547, [2011] BVC 30, [2011] STI 129 … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v Blue Sphere Global Ltd: CA 16 Dec 2010

Mitchell and Others v James and Others: CA 12 Jul 2002

The defendant had made an offer including an offer that each party bear their own costs. A later action led to an order on better terms, and the claimant sought costs on an indemnity basis. Held: The rules were generally incompatible with offers which included costs. Their purpose was to direct costs after a case … Continue reading Mitchell and Others v James and Others: CA 12 Jul 2002

Andrews v Retro Computers Ltd: SCCO 16 Jan 2019

Application for partial or total disallowance of the Claimants’ costs pursuant to rule 44.11(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR); the Defendants allege ‘gross misconduct before and during the proceedings’. Citations: [2019] EWHC B2 (Costs) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Costs Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.641805

Boyle, Regina (On the Application of) v Haverhill Pub Watch and Others: Admn 8 Oct 2009

The claimant had been banned from public houses under the Haverhill Pub Watch scheme. He now sought judicial review of a decision to extend his ban for a further two years. The Scheme argued that it was not a body amenable to judicial review, and did not exercise ‘functions of a public nature’; the claimant … Continue reading Boyle, Regina (On the Application of) v Haverhill Pub Watch and Others: Admn 8 Oct 2009

Tombstone Ltd v Raja and Another; Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others (No 9): CA 17 Dec 2008

The claimant complained of an irregularly obtained judgment. The defendant had obtained an amendment to a writ of sequestration in the course of a bitterly fought dispute bewteen the defendant and the owner of the claimant. The judge had found the irregularity proved, but declined to set the order aside. The claimant now said that … Continue reading Tombstone Ltd v Raja and Another; Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others (No 9): CA 17 Dec 2008

PR Records Ltd v Vinyl 2000 Limited and others: ChD 15 Jan 2008

The defendant in the main action sought a third party costs order. Judges: Morgan J Citations: [2008] EWHC 192 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 48.2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Thomson v Berkhamsted Collegiate School QBD 2-Oct-2009 Costs were to be sought against third parties to the action. A pupil … Continue reading PR Records Ltd v Vinyl 2000 Limited and others: ChD 15 Jan 2008

Phillips and Another v Symes and others: HL 23 Jan 2008

Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to pre-date the Swiss proceedings. The court of appeal set aside the backdating … Continue reading Phillips and Another v Symes and others: HL 23 Jan 2008

Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd: CA 9 Jul 2007

The claimant sought to add the name of a further claimant. The defendant objected, saying that it was after the expiry of the limitation period. Held: The claimant was seeking to use the rules for substitution of parties to add a party. In defamation law, the claim of each claimant was a single and separate … Continue reading Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd: CA 9 Jul 2007

Hughes v Carratu International Plc: QBD 19 Jul 2006

The claimant wished to bring an action against the defendant enquiry agent, saying that it had obtained unlawful access to details of his bank accounts, and now sought disclosure of documents. The defendant denied wrongdoing, and said it had returned all papers to solicitors. Held: The proposed respondents had not been fully candid, and a … Continue reading Hughes v Carratu International Plc: QBD 19 Jul 2006

Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another: CA 4 May 2006

The defendants appealed a decision that they had no sufficient reason for not attending court on the day of the trial. Held: The fact that the defendants had a continuing commercial relationship with the claimants was not enough to justify an inference that they should be aware of proceedings served at a former address. In … Continue reading Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another: CA 4 May 2006

Asia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania): ComC 7 Nov 2005

Various cargo owners sought damages against the owners of the ship which had suffered an explosion with the loss of the cargo. The defendants asserted limitation. Some claimants had agreed an extension of time. Proceedings were then issued but served only eventually made with letters claimed to be equivocal. The question was what constituted service. … Continue reading Asia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania): ComC 7 Nov 2005

Sisu Capital Fund Ltd and others v Tucker and others: 28 Oct 2005

The Defendants were accountants who had been sued through their partnership in KPMG. They had been granted a order for their costs. They sought payment for the time they had spent prersonally in preparing their defences. Held: As professionals there was no reason to distinguish the cost to the defendants of resisting the claims in … Continue reading Sisu Capital Fund Ltd and others v Tucker and others: 28 Oct 2005

Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another: CA 27 Oct 2005

The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate. Held: The absence of the estimate should not deprive the solicitor of payment for the work undertaken … Continue reading Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another: CA 27 Oct 2005

HSS Hire Services Group Plc v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd and Another: CA 24 May 2005

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 amount. He ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the liability trial … Continue reading HSS Hire Services Group Plc v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd and Another: CA 24 May 2005

Sekhon, etc v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2002

The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements. Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, and must not allow procedural or technical failures to defeat that purpose. Courts should rather look to see … Continue reading Sekhon, etc v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2002

Burchell v Bullard and others: CA 8 Apr 2005

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 difficulty of settling costs on an issue by issue basis, but should have considered … Continue reading Burchell v Bullard and others: CA 8 Apr 2005

Iliffe and Another (T/A Otterton Post Office) v Customs and Excise: VDT 14 Jan 2004

VDT ASSESSMENT – Over-claimed input tax – Work done to a listed building – Whether alteration or repair – Part of work related to private house – Whether VAT reasonable LEGAL COSTS – Appellants ordered by court to pay building societies costs including VAT – Whether that VAT recoverable in hands of the Appellants – … Continue reading Iliffe and Another (T/A Otterton Post Office) v Customs and Excise: VDT 14 Jan 2004

Clarke (executor of the will of Francis Bacon, deceased) v Marlborough Fine Art (London) Ltd and Another: ChD 20 Nov 2001

A party will not be allowed to file pleadings which required him to make contradictory statements of truth in a unified claim. The alternative may be for the proceedings to go ahead as separate, non-unified claims. When considering whether there was evidence to support an amendment, the court should apply the same test as for … Continue reading Clarke (executor of the will of Francis Bacon, deceased) v Marlborough Fine Art (London) Ltd and Another: ChD 20 Nov 2001

Chiu and Others v Waitrose Ltd and Others: TCC 25 May 2011

A defendant sought relief from sanctions for failing to comply with the requirements of an unless order. ‘The application raises the question of the extent to which the Court will grant such relief when a party has failed to comply with a consent order so that the sanction for failure to comply has been imposed … Continue reading Chiu and Others v Waitrose Ltd and Others: TCC 25 May 2011

PHD Modular Access Services Ltd v Seele, Gmbh: TCC 8 Aug 2011

An application by a scaffolding sub-contractor for disclosure and pre-claim disclosure under CPR Part 31.16. Judges: Akenhead J Citations: [2011] EWHC 2210 (TCC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 31.16 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Civil Procedure Rules Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.443854

The United States of America v Nolan: SC 21 Oct 2015

Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed. Held: The appeal failed (Lord Carnworth dissenting). That the exact situation might not have … Continue reading The United States of America v Nolan: SC 21 Oct 2015

Afrika and others v Cape Plc and others; X Y Z and Others v Schering health Care Ltd; Sayers and Others v Merck, Smithkline Beecham plc MMR/MR vaccine litigation: CA 21 Dec 2001

Claimants sought damages for personal injuries after immunisation with the MMR vaccine. Citations: [2001] EWCA Civ 2027 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Davies v Eli Lilly and Co (Opren Litigation) CA 1987 The powers in the section together with the power to make orders for costs under … Continue reading Afrika and others v Cape Plc and others; X Y Z and Others v Schering health Care Ltd; Sayers and Others v Merck, Smithkline Beecham plc MMR/MR vaccine litigation: CA 21 Dec 2001

Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey: CA 29 Jul 2004

The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had not been in prison. Held: The statutory scheme replaced an ex gratia scheme, and there … Continue reading Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey: CA 29 Jul 2004

Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd: CA 7 Apr 2004

In an request for pre-action discovery it was plainly wrong for the court to seek to decide in advance any element of the virtues of the case. Held: The appeal should be allowed. The case was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘We have reservations about the approach adopted by the … Continue reading Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd: CA 7 Apr 2004

Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others: ChD 23 Jan 2004

Judges: Lindsay J Citations: [2004] EWHC 63 (Ch), HCO100644 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 44 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Ford v GKR Construction and Others CA 22-Oct-1999 Where a party wished to put the other at risk of payment of costs by the making of an offer, it was vital that … Continue reading Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others: ChD 23 Jan 2004

Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd: CA 24 Jun 2003

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 no reason why the Court should not do so where a party … Continue reading Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd: CA 24 Jun 2003

Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc: CA 14 May 2003

In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused. Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to serve, including mere oversight. The court’s discretion might then be exercised according … Continue reading Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc: CA 14 May 2003

Seray-Wurie v Hackney London Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 2002

The claimant had applied for and been granted its costs certificate by default. The respondent claimed it had sent its point of issue notice in time. The council now applied under the rule for the court itself to re-open the decision to allow the objections to be made. The High Court acceded to the request. … Continue reading Seray-Wurie v Hackney London Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 2002

Kellar v BBR Graphic Engineers (Yorks) Ltd: ChD 2002

The court was asked whether the district judge had applied the right test on an application to set aside a statutory demand because the conclusions of the district judge referred to a real prospect of success, the test used in CPR 24.2, rather than the test of genuine triable issue. Held: The debate as to … Continue reading Kellar v BBR Graphic Engineers (Yorks) Ltd: ChD 2002

Godwin v Swindon Borough Council: CA 10 Oct 2001

The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The defendant had claimed that the rules deemed service on the second … Continue reading Godwin v Swindon Borough Council: CA 10 Oct 2001

Hall v Rover Financial Services (GB) Ltd (t/a Land Rover Financial Services): CA 10 Oct 2002

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 that she should have been suspicious. Held: The judge had found … Continue reading Hall v Rover Financial Services (GB) Ltd (t/a Land Rover Financial Services): CA 10 Oct 2002

Police of The Metropolis v Brown: QBD 31 Jul 2018

‘The appeal concerns the operation of the qualified one-way costs shifting regime (known as ‘QOCS’) contained in Section II of Part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’). The Judge decided that QOCS applied, automatically, to protect Ms Brown against any adverse costs order which might be made against her in the Police’s favour. The … Continue reading Police of The Metropolis v Brown: QBD 31 Jul 2018

In re P (a Barrister) (Wasted Costs Order): CACD 23 Jul 2001

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, rather than cases involving contempt of court. Usually there is no need for the judge in … Continue reading In re P (a Barrister) (Wasted Costs Order): CACD 23 Jul 2001

Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Company and Others: ComC 25 May 2001

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 them. The reasonableness of pursuing a point was not necessarily relevant. The sub-paragraph was … Continue reading Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Company and Others: ComC 25 May 2001

C Inc Plc v L and Another: QBD 4 May 2001

The plaintiff had obtained judgment against L, only then to find that she claimed that all only apparent assets were held by her on trust for or as agent for her husband who was overseas. The plaintiff therefore now set out to add him, and to claim an asset freezing injunction against him. Held: The … Continue reading C Inc Plc v L and Another: QBD 4 May 2001

CIL International Ltd v Vitrashop Ltd: ChD 2002

Pumfrey J held that an Earth Closet order was not incompatible with the CPR. His reason was that such an order was not incompatible with the overriding objective: ‘That being the existing state of the law prior to the Civil Procedure Rules it may be seen immediately that it is consistent with the overriding objective … Continue reading CIL International Ltd v Vitrashop Ltd: ChD 2002

Hildebrand v Hildebrand: 1992

The parties in ancillary relief proceedings sought orders for discovery. H had been to the wife’s flat surreptitiously on five occasions, and taken photocopies of so many documents obtained by him in the course of those visits (but returned after photocopying) that the photocopies themselves would now ‘fill a crate’, as the judge was told. … Continue reading Hildebrand v Hildebrand: 1992

Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney: ChD 27 May 2002

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

KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council: CA 27 Apr 2005

(Practice Note) The solicitor appealed an order which made the success fee payable different at different stages of the court action. Held: The court had no power to make such an order. To the extent that the CPR might suggest otherwise they were wrong. ‘a practice direction has no legislative force. Practice directions provide invaluable … Continue reading KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council: CA 27 Apr 2005

In re T (Children): SC 25 Jul 2012

The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house for legal costs. Despite being exonerated, the judge followed the normal practice of not awarding costs … Continue reading In re T (Children): SC 25 Jul 2012

Dollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie: QBD 17 Mar 2003

The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim. Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a cross claim by someone other than the original defendant to the … Continue reading Dollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie: QBD 17 Mar 2003

Anglo Group Plc, Winther Brown and Co Ltd v Winter Brown and Co Ltd, BML (Office Computers) Ltd, Anglo Group Plc, BML (Office Computers) Ltd: TCC 8 Mar 2000

Contract – Contract for provision of computer services – purchaser contract with finance company – duty of co-operation to be implied in computer contracts – practice – responsibilities of expert witnesses generally – whether computer company liable to purchaser – whether purchaser liable to finance company.The parties disputed the delivery and quality of a computer … Continue reading Anglo Group Plc, Winther Brown and Co Ltd v Winter Brown and Co Ltd, BML (Office Computers) Ltd, Anglo Group Plc, BML (Office Computers) Ltd: TCC 8 Mar 2000

Turner v Grovit and others: CA 28 May 1999

A court has an inherent power to injunct a party not to institute or continue proceedings abroad, where they appear intended purely to harass another party in proceedings here. The two actions here were based upon the ‘same contractual relationship’ and concerned the ‘same subject matter’. This is not limited to cases of exclusive jurisdiction … Continue reading Turner v Grovit and others: CA 28 May 1999

AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others: SC 10 Apr 2019

The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. Held: The appeals failed save that the UK was not the proper jurisdiction to bring the case. The claim … Continue reading Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others: SC 10 Apr 2019

Astex Therapeutics Ltd v Astrazeneca Ab: ChD 8 Nov 2016

The parties had agreed to work tgether in the development of new drugs, but came to dispute whether certain projects were subject to the agreement. The claimant sought details of the defendant’s internal documents justifying that conclusion. The defendant then refused access to certain documents asserting legal professional privlege. The claimants now sought an order … Continue reading Astex Therapeutics Ltd v Astrazeneca Ab: ChD 8 Nov 2016

Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset: HL 11 Mar 2004

The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury. Held: The jury should indeed have been given opportunity to explain their verdict: ‘By … Continue reading Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset: HL 11 Mar 2004

Coward v Harraden: QBD 2 Dec 2011

Parties had fought each other in wide ranging litigation. The claimant found covert surveillance devices in his home, and discovered evidence that the defendant may have information as to who had placed them. Earlier orders had been made for the disclosure of some information. The party opposing the claimant in the ongoing litigation then applied … Continue reading Coward v Harraden: QBD 2 Dec 2011

Floyd and Another v Legal Services Commission: QBD 28 Apr 2010

The claimant had succeeded in an action against her legally aided opponent, but then delayed in making her claim for costs against the respondent. The costs judge said that the CPR did not apply, and that he had no discretion to extend the time limit. The claimant said that a costs judge could extend the … Continue reading Floyd and Another v Legal Services Commission: QBD 28 Apr 2010

Knight v Axa Assurances: QBD 24 Jul 2009

The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied. Held: The assessment of damages is a procedural matter, and is governed by the law of … Continue reading Knight v Axa Assurances: QBD 24 Jul 2009

Winkler and Another v Shamoon and Others: ChD 15 Feb 2016

The claimants sought a declaration as against the residuary beneficiaries (wife and daughter) under the will, saying that the claimants had a beneficial interest in company shares within the estate. The defendants fild acknowledgments of service but asserting expressly that they did not submit to the jurisdiction of the court. The claimants said that the … Continue reading Winkler and Another v Shamoon and Others: ChD 15 Feb 2016

Jones v Longley and Others: ChD 20 Nov 2015

The court had made an order removing one executor, though with no criticism. It now considered its order for costs, all parties seeking costs in their favour. Held: The two personal representatives could not be expected to continue to work together, and at least one must go. Master Matthews said: ‘there are not two sets … Continue reading Jones v Longley and Others: ChD 20 Nov 2015

In re Good, deceased; Carapeto v Good and Others: ChD 19 Apr 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

Manchester City Council v Pinnock: SC 3 Nov 2010

The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his family members. The county court had been unwilling to allow any challenge … Continue reading Manchester City Council v Pinnock: SC 3 Nov 2010

Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2): SC 19 Jun 2013

The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. The bank sought to have the direction given under section 7 of the 2008 Act. … Continue reading Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2): SC 19 Jun 2013

Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note): CA 21 Mar 2002

The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate. Held: In such cases the court must undertake a two stage examination. First it should look at the … Continue reading Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note): CA 21 Mar 2002

Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1): CA 19 Dec 2002

Capacity for Litigation The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the time to accept the offer. Held: There is no definition … Continue reading Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1): CA 19 Dec 2002

Ullah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy: CA 12 Dec 2002

The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants argued that the Civil Procedure Rules took sway over the Election Rules, and that the … Continue reading Ullah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy: CA 12 Dec 2002

Cutts v Head and Another: CA 7 Dec 1983

There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining that the judge had failed to take into account an offer of settlement made … Continue reading Cutts v Head and Another: CA 7 Dec 1983

Baker Tilly (A Firm) v Makar: QBD 27 Mar 2013

The claimant accountants had represented the defendant in a dispute with former employees. They sought payment of their costs, but the claim was stayed until the defendant had the opportunity to to seek representation by a MacKenzie friend after the taxing master became concerned for her health and as to her ability to conduct proceedings. … Continue reading Baker Tilly (A Firm) v Makar: QBD 27 Mar 2013