Darroch and Another v Football Association Premier League Ltd: CA 2 Dec 2016

The Claimants had had their appeals against conviction for breaches of the 1988 Act set aside, but now appealed against refusal of their costs of defending the action.

Sir Brian Leveson, P, Hallett, Burnett LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1220
Bailii
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 297
England and Wales

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.572000

Harrison and Another v Black Horse Ltd: SCCO 7 Mar 2013

[2013] EWHC B5 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoHarrison and Another v Black Horse Ltd CA 12-Oct-2011
The appellant sought under section 104A to recover a Payment Protection Insurance premium paid in support of a loan. The borrower dealt directly with the lender, who acted as an intermediary with the insurer. The commission taken by the lender was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.516372

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Eurocell Building Plastics Ltd and Another: SCCO 31 Jul 2006

‘In this detailed assessment, the Claimants are receiving their costs from the Defendants under the terms of an order of the Court of Appeal dated 7 July 2005. In their points of dispute, Eurocell raised the following issue in relation to Part B of the bill;
The Claimant was never on the record as a litigant in person and there is no authority for these claims. The Defendant makes no offer.’ The claimant sought payment of te costs both of external and internal solicitors.

Master Campbell
[2006] EWHC 90069 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.443621

C v FC (Children Proceedings: Costs): FD 2004

Practice in the Family Division has departed from the ‘costs follow the event’ principle in significant respects. The court brought together recent cases on this topic.

Rex Tedd QC
[2004] 1 FLR 362
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCorner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.223258

Morgan and Another v Ministry of Justice and Another: QBD 18 Oct 2010

The court was asked as to the determination is the costs of the trial of the preliminary issues and other costs incurred in relation thereto.

Supperstone J
[2010] EWHC 2563 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAhmad v London Borough of Brent and Others QBD 25-Feb-2011
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.425336

Addleshaw Goddard Llp v Wood and Another: SCCO 8 Apr 2015

The issues addressed in this reserved judgment are the following:-
i) Is the Claimant (‘AG’) entitled to an order for a payment by the Defendants (‘the Administrators’) in the sum of pounds 12,663,822.95 for fees earned under a Contentious Business Agreement (‘CBA’) dated 26 October 2010?
ii) Is AG entitled to a declaration under Section 73 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (‘the Act’) that it is entitled to a charge on money held by the Administrators which have been recovered (so AG contends) through AG’s instrumentality to the value of pounds 12,663,822.95 until payment?
iii) Is AG entitled to any further order under Section 73 of the Act which might be required to give effect to any order for payment should one be made?

Master Campbell
[2015] EWHC B12 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.551056

Longstaff International Ltd v Baker Mckenzie: ChD 16 Jun 2004

A request for security for costs based upon impecuniosity calls for an assessment of what the claimant may be expected to have available for payment at the due date or dates in the form of cash or other readily realisable assets.

The Honourable Mr Justice Park
[2004] EWHC 1852 (Ch), [2004] 1 WLR 2917, [2005] CLY 465
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedTulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV and Others ChD 5-Jan-2022
Security required for Bitcoin claim
Two applications for security for costs. The claimant claimed against fifteen overseas residents requiring a re-write of cryotocurrency systems so that he could recover sums he said were due to him in respect of Bitcoin assets which he said have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.671260

R v Barts Health NHS Trust: SCCO 6 Jan 2022

Senior Solicitor still proper when Counsel used

The defendant Trust argued that it had been no longer necessary to employ a senior specialist solicitor to manage a professional negligence claim once counsel had been instructed, and that the ‘baton of responsibility and importance to the claimant’ had been passed to leading and junior counsel and that the solicitors relied heavily upon the barristers’ specialist knowledge and skill to take the case forward.
Held: The argument failed. The hourly rates claimed were justified and that it was a ‘remarkable suggestion’ that costs could be downgraded because of the solicitor’s choice of external assistance: ‘I am clearly of the view that expertise was evident in the solicitors’ dealings with counsel. The papers reminded me of files seen where commercial law firms and leading and junior counsel are acting quickly in relation to injunctive proceedings with rapid return dates et cetera.
There is very much a team effort between solicitors and counsel in terms of communication with other parties, the drafting of documentation, the strategy and so on.’

Costs Judge Rowley
[2022] EWHC B3 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.671614

Wall v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc: ComC 7 Oct 2016

Claimant may be ordered to disclose funder

The claimant alleged the misselling of interest rate sawp agreements by the defendant to his companies, leading to losses of andpound;700 million. The defendant now applied for disclosure of the identity of any third party funding the claimant’s litigation, and if appropriate the associated costs order.
Held: RBS has a proper basis to pursue an application under CPR 25.14 if only they can identify the correct respondent(s) to such an application. The order sought will require Mr Wall to provide information which he has that will enable RBS to identify that respondent or those respondents. There is a serious argument then to be had, on the merits, not between RBS and Mr Wall, although no doubt Mr Wall formally has an interest, but between RBS and the correct respondent(s), once identified, as to whether they should be required to put up security for RBS’s costs. An order would not infringe the claimant’s article 8 human rights.

Baker QC
[2016] EWHC 2460 (Comm)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 25.14(2)(b)
England and Wales

Costs, Human Rights

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570438

Bastionspark Llp and Others v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 5 Oct 2016

UTTC Costs in First-tier Tribunal – appellant LLPs appealing against closure notices disallowing partnership expenditure – appellants partially successful but failing on financially most significant issue – whether appellants the successful parties – whether First-tier Tribunal erred in directing appellants to pay two-thirds of HMRC’s costs – appeals against First-tier Tribunal dismissed

[2016] UKUT 425 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Costs

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570425

Hills and Another v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 17 Jun 2016

UTTC COSTS – whether First-tier Tribunal had power to make an order in respect of costs under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (Complex category) – application by appellants for recategorisation to Complex on first day of hearing, including intention not to opt-out – whether subsequent request to opt out under Rule 10(1)(c)(ii) effective – jurisdiction of Upper Tribunal to re-make costs order of the FTT – exercise of discretion – costs order in the Upper Tribunal proceedings

[2016] UKUT 266 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570403

Isteed v London Borough of Redbridge: EAT 21 Jul 2016

Practice and Procedure: Costs – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
On appeal against a wasted costs order made against the opposing party’s solicitor, the appeal was allowed.
It was common ground that the Employment Judge made no positive findings on causation and gave no reasons for considering such an order ‘right’. The jurisdiction to make a wasted costs order extends only to impugned conduct that has caused a waste of costs and only to the extent of such wasted costs, demonstration of a causal link being essential. These findings were not implicit in the particular circumstances. The Employment Judge erred in failing adequately to deal with causation and the justice of such an order.
Separately, there was procedural unfairness. Given the fluid and changing nature of the application, the paying solicitors did not have proper or adequate notice of its basis that would enable them to respond. By the time of the final hearing of the application (which had taken four days separately listed), the comments and conduct of the Employment Judge led to the appearance of bias, and the Employment Judge should have recused himself.

Simler DBE P J
[2016] UKEAT 0442 – 14 – 2107
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570383

A and S (Children) v Lancashire County Council: FD 17 Apr 2013

The children applied for their costs. They had been made subject of freeing orders on the application of the respondent, but had then successfully appealed against the orders, saying that their human rights had been infringed.

Peter Jackson J
[2013] EWHC 851 (Fam)
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981 51(1)
England and Wales

Adoption, Costs

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.472649

Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II Sca, Joint Liquidators of v Slaughter and May (A Firm): ChD 13 Jun 2014

Appeal by the liquidators of a company against the refusal of the Registrar to order that the fees of solicitors employed by the administrators previously in office, which have been agreed and paid by the administrators, should nevertheless be assessed by the court. It raises issues as to the effect of r7.34 of the Insolvency Rules, which provides that such fees may be fixed either by agreement of the responsible insolvency practitioner or by assessment, in circumstances where a liquidator disagrees with the decision of his predecessor.

David Cooke HHJ
[2014] EWHC 1390 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.570008

IG Index Ltd v Cloete: QBD 16 Sep 2016

Order for costs after decision that the action should not be allowed to go to trial.

Richard Parkes QC
[2016] EWHC 2297 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoIG Index Plc v Cloete QBD 11-Dec-2013
The defendant applied to have struck out the claim, saying that it was based upon a misuse of documents disclosed during an employment tribunal case, and was an abuse since the claimants had not sought the permission of the Tribunal for a second use . .
See AlsoIG Index Ltd v Cloete CA 31-Jul-2014
In the course of unfair dismissal proceedings, the defendant had disclosed possession of confidential materials of his former employer. The employer began these proceedings based on the materials. Only at a later point when he appointed solicitors . .
See AlsoIG Index Ltd v Cloete QBD 21-Dec-2015
Application by the defendant to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(b) on the grounds that the proceedings amount to pointless and wasteful litigation, the continuation of which to trial serves no useful purpose for the claimant, squanders . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569420

Campbell v Campbell: ChD 13 Sep 2016

Costs recovery for LIP

‘This judgment concerns two issues. First, the extent to which the costs management regime under CPR 3.12 to 3.18 applies to the costs of a litigant in person. Secondly, the scope of litigant in person costs recoverable under CPR 46.5 where a litigant in person obtains legal assistance from a solicitor and a member of the bar.’

Marsh CM
[2016] EWHC 2237 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569411

Walbrook Properties Ltd v Severn Trent Water Ltd and others: SCCO 5 Feb 2002

The Claimants brought proceedings against three defendants, all part of the same group, claiming damages initially pitched at pounds 16 million for damages for lateral trespass, unauthorised excavation, vertical trespass and occupation by gas extraction in relation to a quarry controlled and/or owned by one or other of the defendants in Staffordshire.
The third defendants contended that on the proper construction of the deeds they never had any interest in the quarry, and ought never to have been joined in the proceedings. Ultimately, but only after expensive and protracted discovery, the claimants accepted that contention, and discontinued as against the third defendants. The claimants were given leave by the District Judge in Birmingham to substantially amend (and in fact to reduce the quantum of) their claim, on the basis that the costs of that exercise should be paid by the claimants forthwith.
The action was proceeding in the Birmingham District Registry, but ultimately that court directed that the assessment of these two bills should take place in the SCCO in London.
The defendants used a well known City firm, who were the regular solicitors for the third defendants, the Plc, which was the holding company, and were charged City rates accordingly. The claimants disputed their liability to pay City rates, contending that the case had no real connection with London, and that Birmingham rates should be applicable. They conceded that the case was of such a size and complexity that a team of fee earners would be required, but contended that there were several such firms in Birmingham, one of whom in fact regularly did work for the first defendants.
The Costs Judge found in favour of the claimants, and awarded costs at Birmingham rates, and the defendants appealed. The Costs Judge provided voluntary written reasons, setting out in considerable detail the basis upon which he had come to his conclusion, reviewing the relevant cases.
The Judge, whilst holding that the Costs Judge had not clearly enunciated the principles applicable, had nevertheless taken into account all the appropriate factors and weighed them appropriately in the balance, and that accordingly his decision should not be interfered with, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

[2002] EWHC 9016 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.235581

Dibb and Clegg (A Firm) v Recover Ltd and others: SCCO 12 Oct 2001

This was an appeal against the decision of a Costs Judge given on 31 August 2000 on a preliminary issue raised in the course of a detailed assessment of the Claimant Solicitors’ bills delivered to the Defendants.
The background to the matter is that the Claimant firm had been endeavouring to recover outstanding legal fees from the Defendants for whom the firm had acted in a substantial commercial dispute. The trial in the Queen’s Bench Division had been expected to last 10 days. On 20 October 1998 the Claimant entered into a Contentious Business Agreement (‘CBA’) with the two corporate Defendants and two of the individual Defendants (D4 and D5).
The CBA provided for payment of agreed fees by agreed instalments. The trial lasted 5 weeks. The Defendants succeeded in their defence and were awarded their costs on the indemnity basis but little if anything has been recovered from the Plaintiffs. The Defendants paid some but by no means all of the agreed costs to the Claimant firm. The Claimant pressed for payment. They served statutory demands and applied for a freezing order. In an affidavit sworn by D4 in July 1999 in support of an application to get aside the statutory demands D4 said that the CBA was unenforceable because it had been signed under pressure from the Claimant and that D4 and D5 were ‘putting in hand an application for the CBA to be set aside and for there to be a detailed assessment of the bills delivered’.
In the event, the parties entered into a Consent Order in Tomlin form made by Steel J on 2 August 1999 under which the Claimant was to submit new bills and to withdraw the statutory demands. The Claimant was, under the Order, to submit the new bills for detailed assessment and the Defendants were to pay the assessed costs within 14 days of the completion of the assessment (less all sums previously paid – any dispute as to what those sums were was to be resolved by arbitration). The Claimant also agreed, in the Schedule, not to rely upon the CBA dated 20 October 1998 or any other CBA. As part of the Order D4 gave undertakings not to sell or lease certain property until after the completion of the detailed assessment or further order.
The Claimant served new bills on 6 August 1999 (‘the new bills’) which totalled about pounds 444,000 whereas the old bills had totalled about pounds 364,000.
On 28 September 1999 Steel J made another Consent Order which varied the undertakings given by D4 in the order of 2 August 1999 so as to add further properties to the security provided and which also amended that Order to include an order for the detailed assessment of the new bills and lay down a procedural timetable for that detailed assessment. On 30 November 1999 the Claimant served a breakdown of the new bills and on 28 February 2000 the Defendants served Points of Dispute in which it was contended that the new bills should be subject to a ‘cap’ being the sum the Defendants had agreed to pay under the CBA.
At the hearing on 31 August 2000, D4 (who was by this time acting in person) asked the Costs judge (through the Costs draftsman who had been permitted to speak on her behalf) to make a declaration that the Claimant was bound by the CBA whereas the Defendants were not because the Defendants had not agreed not to rely on the CBA and it had not been expressly set aside. The Costs judge held that the Defendants were unable to rely on the CBA and that accordingly the detailed assessment must proceed. When the detailed assessment had been completed the new bills had been reduced from about pounds 444,000 to about pounds 423,000. It had been established (in arbitration proceedings pursuant to the Order of 2 August 1999) that the Defendants had paid nearly pounds 200,000 and so some pounds 223,000 (plus some further sums) remained payable to the Claimant.
D4 and D5 lodged Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Costs judge that the Defendants were not entitled to invoke the CBA. Permission was given for the appeal by Eady J on 21 February 2001. The Notice of Appeal says that the Costs judge was wrong to hold that the Appellants could not rely on the CBA and that he ought to have held that the Order of Steel J only prevented the Claimant from relying on it.
By the time the appeal came on for hearing on 12 October 2001, D4 had been adjudged bankrupt and so the only remaining Appellant was D5. Mr Fortune, Counsel for D5, submitted that the Orders of Steel J had to be construed objectively and he drew attention to the Schedule to the Order of 2 August 1999 where the Claimant agreed that the CBA would not be relied on whereas the Defendants did not and there was no Order setting the CBA aside. He submitted that it was accordingly open to the Defendants to fall back on the CBA which contained a ‘capping’ arrangement.
Mr Farber, the Claimant’s Counsel, submitted that one had to have regard to the factual matrix – including the affidavit sworn by D4 in July 1999 where she contended that the CBA should be set aside. It was plain, he submitted, that the intention of the parties was that the CBA should be set aside and that there should be a detailed assessment. Indeed he contended that there could not be an Order for a detailed assessment if the CBA was not set aside.
Referring to Sections 59-63 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the learned judge said that the overall scheme of the legislation was, in the ordinary way, to remove costs which were subject to a contentious business agreement from the process of detailed assessment, but in so doing to enable justice to be done. On the facts of this case it was plain that both sides were abandoning the CBA and had decided to go down the detailed assessment route. Indeed, the Order of 2 August 1999 provided for the preparation of new bills and for them to be paid within 14 days of assessment. That was reinforced by the fact that the Solicitors served new bills and there was an order (i.e. the Order of 28 September 1999) for the detailed assessment of those bills. It was difficult to see how Steel J could have made that Order if there was still a live CBA. The Defendants were not entitled to blow hot and cold. In any event (even if he was wrong about that) he would hold (agreeing with Mr Farber’s submission) that the Defendants were estopped from raising the point or were deemed to have waived it in view of the large sums of money which the Claimant had already expended in the detailed assessment before the Defendants first raised it in their Points of Dispute. The costs judge had been right.
The appeal was dismissed and the 5th Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant’s Costs which the judge summarily assessed.

[2001] EWHC 9011 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.235612

Gorlov v Institute of Chartered Accountants: 2001

The court considered the principles applicable when considering an award of costs against a professional body carrying out its disciplinary function.

Jackson J
[2001] EWHC Admin 22
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBaxendale-Walker v The Law Society Admn 30-Mar-2006
The solicitor appealed being struck off. He had given a character reference in circumstances where he did not have justification for the assessment.
Held: ‘The appellant knew that Barclays Bank trusted him to provide a truthful reference. . .
Appeal fromGorlov, Regina (on the Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales, Reviewer of Complaints CA 9-Jul-2002
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Costs

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.241557

In re a Solicitor (Taxation of Costs): CA 1955

Matrimonial proceedings were in contemplation but the instructions to solicitors were terminated before a petition for judicial separation was filed. The client complained as to the costs bill submitted by the solicitors.
Denning LJ disposed of the submission that the line should be drawn between contentious and non-contentious business according to the date of the issue of the writ in the following way: ‘Let me test the position by taking a case where a client asks his solicitor to bring an action. The solicitor thereupon instructs counsel to draft the writ and the statement of claim to be served with it. If the action goes for trial, the costs of that work are recoverable as costs in the action. They are not disallowed simply because the work was done before the writ was issued. It is clearly contentious business. Now suppose that in that very case the solicitor had to take statements from witnesses so as to enable counsel to settle the statement of claim. If the action goes for trial, the cost of that work would also be recoverable as costs in the action . . It would also be contentious business.
Now suppose that after the solicitor had done all that work, but before the writ was actually issued, the case was settled by the defendant paying the claim. Does the work take on a different character simply because the case was settled? Surely not. If it is contentious business when the case goes for trial, it is also contentious business when the case is settled before the writ is issued. The issue of the writ does not alter the nature of the business; nor should it alter the method or amount of the solicitor’s charges. He should get the same reward for the same work, no matter whether the case goes for trial or is settled the moment before the writ issued or the moment after it.’
He said of what was required to be contained in a bill of costs for non-contentious business as follows: ‘[I]t must contain a summarized statement of the work done, sufficient to tell the client what it is for which he is asked to pay. A bare account for ‘professional services’ between certain dates, or for ‘work done in connection with your matrimonial affairs’ would not do. The nature of the work must be stated, such as, advising on such and such a matter, instructing counsel to do so and so, drafting such and such a document, and so forth.’

Denning, Parker LJJ
[1955] 2 QB 252
Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 1929
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRalph Hume Garry (a Firm) v Gwillim CA 22-Oct-2002
The appellant sought to have struck out the claimant’s action to recover their costs having represented him. He said that the detail in the bill was so deficient as not to comply with the requirements of the Act.
Held: Though the detail given . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.182390

Chemistree Homecare Limited v Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd: ChD 2011

On requesting security for costs from a claimant said to be impecunious, the applicant must show that, on all the material presently available to the court, there is reason to believe that the claimant will be unable to pay the applicant’s costs if ordered to do so.

[2011] EWHC 2979 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedTulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV and Others ChD 5-Jan-2022
Security required for Bitcoin claim
Two applications for security for costs. The claimant claimed against fifteen overseas residents requiring a re-write of cryotocurrency systems so that he could recover sums he said were due to him in respect of Bitcoin assets which he said have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.671258

Giambrone and others v JMC Holidays Ltd (Formerly Sunworld Holidays Ltd): QBD 20 Dec 2002

The Honourable Mr Justice Morland
[2002] EWHC 2932 (QB), [2003] 2 Costs LR 189
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSteven Robert Evans v Pontypridd Roofing Limited CA 9-Nov-2001
The claimant sought as part of his damages the cost of the care provided by family members. Counsel for the defendant raised issues about tax, national insurance and travel and other costs which a professional carer would have to bear, which led the . .
CitedHunt v Severs HL 7-Sep-1994
The tortfeasor, a member of the claimant’s family provided her with voluntary nursing care after the injury. The equivalent cost of that care, was recoverable, but would be held on trust for the carer. The underlying rationale of English Law is to . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromGiambrone and others v Sunworld Holidays Ltd CA 18-Feb-2004
Many holidaymakers had suffered gastro-enteritis and sued for compensation. They had sought a sum to reflect the value of gratuitous care.
Held: Save in more serious cases, awards for children suffering gastro-enteritis and cared for by their . .
ElaboratedOrtwein v Rugby Mansions Ltd 2004
. .
CitedRoss v Stonewood Securities Ltd ChD 7-Oct-2004
The claimant appealed an order reducing his award of costs. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.178814

Various Claimants v MGN Ltd: ChD 25 Jul 2016

Costs management hearing in this managed litigation. Earlier costs budgets have been agreed, but those budgets do not cover the entire litigation up to trial and further budgets have been exchanged to take the managed cases up to, but not through, the trial stage. The claimants have agreed the defendants’ budgets. The defendants have not agreed the claimants’ budgets and practically every item in those budgets is disputed. Some of the disputes are particular to the items in question. Others are more over-arching disputes on points which are akin to questions of principle. This judgment deals with one of them, namely the extent to which budgeting should encompass additional liabilities (uplift and ATE insurance premiums) where, as here, a party (the claimants) has entered a conditional fee agreement (‘CFA’) with its lawyers. The cases with which this judgment is concerned are cases based on privacy and publication, and so are cases in which recovery of additional liabilities from the paying party is still possible.

Mann J
[2016] EWHC 1894 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Media, Costs

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567515

Drummond v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 13 May 2016

UTTC PROCEDURE – COSTS – application by Respondents to set aside protective costs order in favour of Appellant – application granted – whether Upper Tribunal has power to make protective costs and costs capping orders – yes – procedure and criteria for protective costs and costs capping orders

[2016] UKUT 221 (TCC)
Bailii

Costs

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567352

Walker and Others v Burton and Another: ChD 19 Apr 2013

The parties had bitterly disputed the Lordship of the Manor of Ireby. The defendants had purchased the former Hall, and had been registered as proprietors of the Lordship. The claimants having succeeded before the Land Registry adjudicator, they now appealed against an order for costs which substantially reduced the sums they could claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded.

David Cooke J
[2013] EWHC 811 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWalker and Another v Burton and Another CA 14-Oct-2013
The Burtons had purchased the former Hall of the village of Ireby, and been registered as proprietors of the Lordhsip of the Manor. The villagers had successfully challenged the registration. The Court now considered the circumstances in which the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Costs

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.473056

Atlantic Electronics Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Feb 2011

COSTS – Transitional appeal – Opposed Application by HMRC under Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009, Sch 3, para 7 for 1986 costs rules to apply – 18 months delay after 2009 Rules took effect – Fact that MTIC appeal not relevant – Hawkeye [2009] UK FTT 636 (TC) approved – Application dismissed

[2011] UKFTT 276 (TC), [2011] SFTD 700, [2011] STI 1947
Bailii

Costs

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.442849