A B and others v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust: QBD 9 May 2003

The claimants were involved in a group litigation with regard to the removal of organs without consent from deceased children. The defendant sought an order capping the costs which might be claimed.
Held: In GLO cases the desirability of ensuring that costs are kept within bounds makes it unnecessary for the court to require exceptional circumstances before exercising its discretion to make a costs cap order. Any costs cap should only relate to the costs incurred in relation to generic issues. An order was made identifying limits to the separate areas. The court’s general powers of case management were sufficiently wide to encompass the making of a costs capping order both in group litigation and in other actions.
Gage J
[2003] EWHC 1034 (QB), Gazette 22-Apr-2004
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 51
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDavies v Eli Lilly and Co (Opren Litigation) CA 1987
The powers in the section together with the power to make orders for costs under Order 62 of the Rules of the Supreme Court included the power to make a pre-emptive order for costs.
Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘In these circumstances the judge . .
CitedSolutia UK Limited v Griffiths CA 26-Apr-2001
The court considered issues relating to the appropriateness of the claimants instructing London solicitors in a case in which those solicitors had submitted a bill of costs totalling pounds 220,000 in connection with a claim in which their clients . .
CitedThe Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others QBD 17-Dec-2002
The applicant sought an advisory order from the court to interpret the meaning of United Nations Security Council resolution no 1441 with regard to steps to be taken under the resolution in the event of the failure of Iraq to comply.
Held: A . .
CitedHome 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 . .

Cited by:
CitedKing 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 March 2021; Ref: scu.184639