Category: Costs

Begg v HM Treasury: CA 23 Jun 2016

The claimant had been charged with terrorist associated offences. The trial was dropped, and the police declared him innocent, but the freeze of his funds remained in place. He sought a costs protection order.

Lord Dyson MR, Longmore, Lloyd Jones LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 568
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime, Costs

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565951

Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Wisbey: UTLC 12 May 2016

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT- Costs incurred in connection with new lease to be paid by the tenant – Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.60 – whether recoverable costs include solicitors’ fees in relation to landlord’s counter-notice and instructing a valuer – consideration of possibility of landlord negotiating a quantum discount with solicitor where numerous lease extensions contemplated

[2016] UKUT 203 (LC)
Bailii
Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 60
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565804

Tulip 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 been deleted after presumably being copied by hackers. The defendants argued that they had no such duty, and requested security for their costs before the case continued. The claimant did not maintain a bank account or file tax returns or trading accounts in the UK and was therefore impecunious.
Held: The order was made. The claimant could not claim as an asset the subject matter of the claim. Any such claim was at issue, and the security was required now. Other possible ways of satisfying the need for security would require extensive work from the defendants which was without any basis in law.

Master Clark
[2022] EWHC 2 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re Unisoft Group (No 2) 1993
Inability to pay means to pay when the costs fall due for payment . .
Cited – Jirehouse Capital and Another v Beller and Another CA 30-Jul-2008
Appeal against refusal of order for security for costs. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Chuku v Chuku ChD 17-Mar-2017
Newey J held that: ‘i) A person with a significant interest in the outcome of a claim will rarely, if ever, be considered a ‘nominal claimant’ within CPR 25.13(2)(f);
ii) A personal interest is not, however, essential. While a trustee, . .
Cited – Bestfort Developments Llp and Others v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Others CA 8-Nov-2016
Whether threshold conditions met for grant of order for security for costs.
Held: The approach adopted should be simple and not ‘over-burdened by technical and semantic arguments relating to the construction of the ‘threshold’ test’ . .
Cited – Sarpd Oil International Ltd v Addax Energy Sa and Another CA 3-Mar-2016
appeal about security for costs.
Held: Where a foreign company is reticent in revealing, or declines to reveal its financial position, it is ‘sound’ practice to grant security against it: ‘ If a company is given every opportunity to show that . .
Cited – Autoweld Systems Ltd v Kito Enterprises Llc CA 17-Dec-2010
In the civil sphere a claim for security for costs is invariably made in a costs-follow-the-event regime. Black LJ stated: ‘it must be borne in mind that the design of the rules is to protect a defendant (or a claimant placed in a similar position . .
Cited – Compagnie Noga D’Importation Et D’Exportation Sa v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others ComC 18-Nov-2004
Langley J held a ‘nominal claimant’ to be ‘one whose name is used to bring a claim in which he does not have any or at least any significant legal or beneficial interest’. . .
Cited – De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v Howe, Surveyor of Taxes HL 1905
The appellant Company was registered in the Cape Colony and it’s business was mining for diamonds in mines which it possessed in South Africa, and selling the diamonds there under annual contracts to a syndicate for delivery there. The Head Office . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Development Securities Plc and Others CA 15-Dec-2020
Appeal from finding in tax planning scheme. As to the residence of the scheme: ‘i) The overarching principle is that a company resides for tax purposes where its real business is carried on, and that is where CMC actually abides;
ii) The . .
Cited – Swedish Central Railway v Thompson HL 1925
A corporation may have more than one residence. Lord Cave after citing De Beers said: ‘The central management and control of a company may be divided, and it may ‘keep house and do business’ in more than one place; and if so, it may have more than . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.671240

Re Unisoft Group (No 2): 1993

Inability to pay means to pay when the costs fall due for payment

[1993] BCLC 532
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Re Unisoft Group Limited (No 3) ChD 1994
When considering applications to strike out parts of pleadings in a s459 application, the courts had to recognise the need to be careful not to allow the parties to trawl through irrelevant grievances. B The statutory definition of ‘shadow director’ . .
Cited – Jirehouse Capital and Another v Beller and Another ChD 16-Jan-2008
. .
Cited – Jirehouse Capital and Another v Beller and Another CA 30-Jul-2008
Appeal against refusal of order for security for costs. . .
Cited – Tulip 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: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.671259

Hanspaul and Another v Ward and Others: ChD 13 Jun 2016

The court was asked as to the proper approach the court should adopt in determining the costs of this claim where the issues between the parties have been resolved, or substantially resolved, without the need for a trial. Generally, the issue is whether the court should direct that a trial, with relevant witnesses attending for cross-examination, should take place in order to enable the court to make a determination of costs issues, or, alternatively should the court adopt a more limited procedure and determine such issues without ‘live evidence’ being called.

Marsh Chief Master
[2016] EWHC 1358 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565550

Engeham v London and Quadrant Housing Trust and Another: CA 1 Dec 2015

This appeal raised a question of the proper construction of a conditional fee agreement, and, in particular, whether the outcome of the action represented a ‘win’ for the claimant.

Lord Dyson MR, Floyd, Simon LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1530
Bailii
England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565661

Jirehouse Capital and Another v Beller and Another: ChD 16 Jan 2008

Briggs J
[2008] EWHC 725 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re Unisoft Group (No 2) 1993
Inability to pay means to pay when the costs fall due for payment . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Jirehouse Capital and Another v Beller and Another CA 30-Jul-2008
Appeal against refusal of order for security for costs. . .
See Also – Jirehouse Capital and Others v Beller and Another ChD 20-Oct-2009
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.266899

Sarpd Oil International Ltd v Addax Energy Sa and Another: CA 3 Mar 2016

appeal about security for costs.
Held: Where a foreign company is reticent in revealing, or declines to reveal its financial position, it is ‘sound’ practice to grant security against it: ‘ If a company is given every opportunity to show that it can pay a defendant’s costs and deliberately refuses to do so there is, in our view, every reason to believe that, if and when it is required to pay a defendant’s costs, it will be unable to do so . . even if deliberate reticence on the part of a respondent is not a breach of CPR 1.3, a court can and should take account of deliberate reticence as part of the overall picture. Any evaluation has to be made on the totality of the evidence before the court; part of that totality is the absence of relevant evidence from the only party who is able to provide it. If, therefore, there were to be a practice of the Commercial Court (as to which we cannot express a view from our own experience) that security for costs will often be granted against a foreign company who is not obliged to publish accounts, has no discernible assets and declines to reveal anything about its financial position, our view is that the practice is a sound one’

Longmore, Sales, LJJ, Baker J
[2016] EWCA Civ 120, [2016] 2 Costs LO 227
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 1.3
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tulip 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: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.560619

Chuku v Chuku: ChD 17 Mar 2017

Newey J held that: ‘i) A person with a significant interest in the outcome of a claim will rarely, if ever, be considered a ‘nominal claimant’ within CPR 25.13(2)(f);
ii) A personal interest is not, however, essential. While a trustee, executor or personal representative will not be a ‘representative claimant under Part 19’ merely because CPR 19.7A is in point, he still will not ordinarily be a ‘nominal claimant’, regardless of whether he is also a beneficiary;
iii) At least typically, there ‘must be some element of deliberate duplicity or window-dressing’ for a person to be a ‘nominal claimant”.

Newey J
[2017] EWHC 541 (Ch), [2017] 1 WLR 3137, [2017] WLR(D) 197
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tulip 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: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.581326

Bestfort Developments Llp and Others v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Others: CA 8 Nov 2016

Whether threshold conditions met for grant of order for security for costs.
Held: The approach adopted should be simple and not ‘over-burdened by technical and semantic arguments relating to the construction of the ‘threshold’ test’

Black, Gloster, Briggs LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1099, [2018] 1 WLR 1099
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .
Cited – Tulip 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: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.571219

Jirehouse Capital and Another v Beller and Another: CA 30 Jul 2008

Appeal against refusal of order for security for costs.

[2008] EWCA Civ 908, [2008] CP Rep 44, [2008] BPIR 1498, [2008] BCC 636, [2009] 1 WLR 751, [2009] Bus LR 404
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Jirehouse Capital and Another v Beller and Another ChD 16-Jan-2008
. .
Cited – Re Unisoft Group (No 2) 1993
Inability to pay means to pay when the costs fall due for payment . .

Cited by:
See Also – Jirehouse Capital and Others v Beller and Another ChD 20-Oct-2009
. .
Cited – Tulip 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: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.271289

Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others (Consequential Orders): ChD 11 Nov 2020

Steven Gasztowicz QC
[2020] EWHC 3025 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others ChD 6-May-2015
The claimant alleged that the defendant had obtained its judgment in earlier proceedings by fraud. The defendant now applied for the claim to be dismissed as an abuse of process. . .
See Also – Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others CA 21-Mar-2017
. .
See Also – Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others SC 20-Mar-2019
Whether to set aside judgment said to have been obtained fraudulently . .
See Also – Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others ChD 23-Oct-2020
The Claimant seeks to set aside a judgment obtained against her by the Defendants in 2010 in an earlier action – allegation that new evidence of forgery of signature. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.655676

HM Attorney General v Crosland: SC 20 Dec 2021

In October 2020, the Supreme Court heard an appeal. C, an unregistered barrister, represented a charity in his capacity of director.
A copy of the Supreme Court’s draft judgment was circulated to the parties’ representatives, to enable them to make suggestions for the correction of any errors, to prepare submissions on consequential matters, and to prepare themselves for the publication of the judgment.
It was stated on the draft judgment, and in a covering email, that the draft was strictly confidential.
Nonetheless, on the day before the judgment was due to be made public, C sent an email to the Press Association containing a statement in which he disclosed the outcome of the appeal. The statement was also published on the charity’s Twitter account. These disclosures led to the publication of the outcome of the Heathrow appeal in the national media and on Twitter, prior to the judgment being delivered.
C now appealed against a finding of contempt, the imposition of a fine, and costs, asking first, whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against orders of the Supreme Court acting as a court of first instance in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, and second, whether the First Instance Panel was correct to hold C in contempt of court and to order the amount of costs that it did.
Held: (Lady Arden dissenting) The appeal failed. Section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 gives a right of appeal from an exercise by the Supreme Court of its contempt jurisdiction, acting at first instance. Section 13 gives such a right of appeal from any court (subject to irrelevant exceptions) and expressly includes the Supreme Court within the meaning of ‘court’. It is not a conceptual impossibility to appeal from one panel of the Supreme Court to another larger panel. The contempt finding was proper and stood.

Lord Briggs
Lady Arden
Lord Kitchin
Lord Burrows
Lady Rose
[2021] UKSC 58
Bailii
England and Wales

Contempt of Court, Costs

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.671050

Pengelly v Pengelly: ChD 2008

Where a word or words have been mistakenly omitted from a will there may well be greater potential for characterising the error as one of a clerical nature. This reflects a natural, almost intuitive, reaction that it is easier to find a clerical error where something has simply been left out.

Hodge QC HHJ
[2008] Ch 375
Administration of Justice Act 1982 20(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bimson, Re The Estate of ChD 26-Jul-2010
Application to rectify the will under the 1982 Act.
Held: The application succeeded. Henderson J said: ‘this case falls comfortably within the scope of clerical error within the meaning of section 20(1)(a). It appears to me plain that David . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.552764

The Co-Operative Bank Plc v Phillips: ChD 21 Aug 2014

The bank had brought possession proceedings against the defendant under two legal charges securing personal guarantees. The proceedings had been abandoned, but the court now was asked whether costs for the defendant should be on the standard or indemnity basis. The defendant argued that the proceedings had been brought for a collateral purpose and were and abuse of process. The bank also argued that the costs should be added to the sum secured. The defendant had entered into an individual voluntary arrangement, saying also that the properties should be excluded since the prior charges themselves left him with negative equity.
Held: The bringing of the possession proceedings for the purpose of putting pressure on Mr Phillips was for the purpose of obtaining repayment of the sums secured by the charges and was therefore a permissible purpose.
As to the costs, the court applied the Gomba Holdings case. Though the proceedings were not an abuse of process, that did not mean that they were reasonable for this purpose. The defendant had shown that the bank had acted unreasonably in bringing th two sets of proceedings, and the bank should not be allowed to add the costs incurred to the mortgage debt, and was liable to him for his costs incurred, and nor was the bank entitled to set off such liability against the mortgage debt.

Morgan J
[2014] EWHC 2862 (Ch)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 38.5(3) 38.6(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Downsview Nominees Ltd and Another v First City Corporation Ltd and Another PC 19-Nov-1992
(New Zealand) The holder of a second debenture appointed receivers to the assets. The first debenture holder then also appointed receivers not to obtain repayment of its debt, but to disrupt the work of the first appointed receivers and in order to . .
Cited – Quennell v Maltby CA 15-Nov-1978
A house was mortgaged to a bank. The house was then let to tenants at an annual rate of andpound;1,000. The tenants were protected as against the mortgagor by the Rent Acts. The tenancy was not binding on the bank. The mortgagor’s wife took a . .
Cited – Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc CA 6-Jan-1999
The applicant’s property was charged to the defendant. At the time it was not occupied. The mortgage fell into arrears, and after serving notice at the property, the bank took posssession and sold the property at auction. The claimants said the bank . .
Cited – Cukurova Finance International Ltd and Another v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd PC 30-Jan-2013
(British Virgin Islands) The claimant sought to recover shareholdings given in charge.
Held: There was an event of default, which entitled ATT to accelerate the loan and to appropriate – or forfeit – the charged shares, but that relief against . .
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Cited – Albany Home Loans Ltd v Massey CA 1997
It is generally not appropriate to order possession against one of two mortgagors where the order would be of no benefit to the mortgagee, particularly where the joint mortgagors were husband and wife. An ordinary order for possession might be . .
Cited – Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd CA 1977
Claims for Collateral Purpose treated as abuse
The plaintiff commenced proceedings for damages for libel and an injunction against the publishers, the editors and the main distributors of Private Eye. In addition, he issued writs against a large number of other wholesale and retail distributors . .
Applied – Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) CA 1993
A clause entitling a mortgagee to recover legal costs from the mortgagor did not extend to costs that were unreasonably incurred or which were unreasonable in amount. Whether costs were unreasonably incurred or were unreasonable in amount was to be . .
Cited – Berkshire Capital Funding Limited v Street and Barker, Nationwide Building Society CA 14-Apr-1999
The court can make an order for possession in favour of the second mortgagee, subject to the rights of a prior mortgagee. Where the first mortgagee grants a tenancy of the mortgaged property, the second mortgagee will be bound by that tenancy and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Banking, Insolvency

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.536007

Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs: SC 11 May 2016

The issue raised on this appeal concerns the extent to which the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to make an order for costs is fettered by the provisions of the Rules regulating the procedure of the Tribunal.
Held: With one exception, under rule 10(1), the FTT can only make two types of costs order. The first is a wasted costs order under sub-para (a), and the other is an order for costs where a party has behaved unreasonably under sub-para (b). The one exception is under sub-para (c), which envisages that there will be no such limitation on the FTT’s jurisdiction to award costs if two conditions are satisfied – namely (i) the proceedings are a ‘Complex case’ under Rule 23, and (ii) the taxpayer has not served a request (within the requisite 28-day period) that there should be no potential liability under rule 10(1)(c). Both the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal had approached the case on the basis that this wa a complex case, but that, a notice having been served, the FTTTx had no power to orders any save wasted costs or for unreasonable conduct. The interpretation suggested by the taxpayer would undermine the no costs shifting basis of the rules.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2016] UKSC 24, [2016] WLR(D) 254, [2016] 1 WLR 1939, [2016] 3 All ER 719, [2016] STC 1385, [2016] STI 1531, [2016] BTC 20, UKSC 2014/0114
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 2 5, Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 29(1) 29(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
At CA – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs CA 26-Feb-2014
The court was asked whether the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) had jurisdiction to make an order that the costs of preparing hearing bundles for a substantive appeal by the appellant taxpayer should be shared equally between the taxpayer and the . .
At FTTTx – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Jun-2011
FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special . .
At UTTC – HM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp UTTC 22-Mar-2013
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying . .
Cited – HMRC v Atlantic Electronics Ltd UTTC 6-Feb-2012
UTTC COSTS – Transitional appeal – Appeal by HMRC against direction under Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009, Sch 3, para 7 for 1986 applying 2009 Rules to the proceedings – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Taxes Management

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563292

Axon v Ministry of Defence: QBD 19 Apr 2016

Order for costs following principal judgment.

Nicol J
[2016] EWHC 883 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Axon v Ministry of Defence QBD 11-Apr-2016
Action for misuse of private information and/or breach of confidence.
Held: Information relating to the events leading to the removal of a Royal Navy warship commander from that role fell outside the ambit of his private or personal life.
Costs

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562790

Peel v Beasley: SCCO 3 Dec 2007

His Honour Judge S P Grenfell,
Sitting With,
Regional Costs Judge, District Judge Spencer,,
And,
Lay Assessor, Mr Geoffrey Swain, Solicitor
[2007] EWHC 90094 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.269941

Archer v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 29 Feb 2016

Procedure -costs application- basic category case – APN – HMRC failure to issue closure notice -unreasonable actions in forcing bringing of proceedings-delay in issuing notice -Rule 10(1)(b) Tribunal Rules -held- HMRC not unreasonable in defending proceedings – behaviour prior to issue of proceedings not determinative.

[2016] UKFTT 141 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561847

Blades v Isaac and Another: ChD 21 Mar 2016

Claim by beneficiary under discretionary trust.
Held: A trustee’s wrongful failure to provide information does not necessarily justify an adverse costs order.

Matthews M
[2016] EWHC 601 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Heugh v Scard CA 1875
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘In certain cases of mere neglect or refusal to furnish accounts, when the neglect is very gross or the refusal wholly indefensible, I reserve to myself the right of making the executor or trustee pay the costs of . .
Cited – In Re Skinner ChD 1904
A beneficiary of a will trust brought an action for an account, having had little or no accounting from the executors and trustees (one a professional solicitor, entitled to charge) since the testator died more than two years before the action was . .

Cited by:
Cited – Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561519

Evans and Others v The Serious Fraud Office: QBD 12 Feb 2015

The claimants had had criminal charges brought against them by the defendants. A court had ordered them discharged, but the defendant had recommenced proceedings and these second set of proceedings had also been dismissed by the court. They now applied for their costs.
Held: The SFO’s conduct had been described as improper: ‘This application was, on any view, outside the norm. In my view, the conduct of the SFO took it there; and, despite the very high hurdle, I am satisfied that that conduct is worthy of being marked by this court with costs on the indemnity basis.’

Hickinbottom J
[2015] EWHC 263 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
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 . .
Cited – Wates Construction Ltd v HGP Greentree Allchurch Evans Ltd TCC 10-Oct-2005
A unit constructed by the claimant had collapsed under a weight of rainwater. It had been constructed according to a design provided by the defendants. The claimants had discontinued the action on the morning of the trial, and the defendants now . .
Refusal of Voluntary indictment – Serious Fraud Office v Evans and Others QBD 14-Nov-2014
The court faced an application by the SFO for a voluntary bill of indictment. Similar charges against the defendants had been discharged. The allegations involved very substantial alleged frauds. . .
Cited – Regina v Horsham Justices, ex parte Reeves (Note) QBD 1980
The police had decided simply to re-lay charges which had already been dismissed after an extensive depositions hearing. The charges were simplified but essentially the same.
Held: This was an abuse of process. A court is possessed of a . .
Cited – Regina v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page HL 3-Dec-1992
The decisions of University Visitors are subject to judicial review in that they exercise a public function. English law no longer draws a distinction between jurisdictional errors of law and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
However, the . .

Cited by:
Cited – MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust and Others CA 17-Feb-2015
Application was made for approval of a compromise of a claim for damages for personal injury for the child. The court now considered whether an order should be made to protect the identity of the six year old claimant.
Held: An order should . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.542603

Beasley v Alexander: QBD 9 Oct 2012

The parties had disputed liability for personal injuries in a road traffic accident. The court had held the defendant liable, but held over the assessment of damages. The defendant sought to refer to the fact of his offer of settlement when assessing the costs of the liability trial.
Held: CPR r 36.13(2) did not permit a court to be told of a Part 36 offer and consequently go on to deal with the question of costs at the conclusion of the first part of a split trial: ‘Until it was known how the payment compared with the final judgment no decision as to costs could be made. It was important for the court to know that there had been a payment into court because it would then know that no order as to costs should be made at that stage. Equally it would be important for a court to know that no payment in had been made because then it could exercise its discretion as to the costs of the liability trial in that knowledge. I should proceed on the basis that when the present Rule 36.13 was formulated the Civil Procedure Rule Committee had the decision in HSS in mind.’
and ‘ as to the construction of the words in Rule 36.13(2) ‘until the case has been decided’ . . I am satisfied that the words have a clear meaning. It is clear that ‘the case’ is used in the sense of ‘the action’ or ‘the proceedings’. The reference to ‘the case’ cannot be construed as referring to part of a case.’

Sir Raymond Jack
[2012] EWHC 2715 (QB), [2012] WLR (D) 272
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 36.13(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – 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 . .
Cited – Garratt v Saxby CA 18-Feb-2004
There had been a Part 36 offer to settle the action. It was disclosed inadvertently to the judge.
Held: There had been no serious procedural irregularity, and fairness and justice did not require a rehearing before different judge. . .
Cited – Ted Baker Plc and Others v Axa Insurance Uk Plc and Others ComC 29-Jun-2012
The court had determined several preliminary issues in favour of the claimants, but issues as to liability remained. The court considered whether and on what basis it was proper now to make an order for costs.
Held: Eder J said: ‘As to the . .
Liability – Beasley v Alexander QBD 27-Jul-2012
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.464786

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 for these proceedings to be anonymised, and the claimant for the so far private applications to be published. The parties agreed on a way forward and now sought a consent order restricting publication, and as to costs.
Held: The court discussed the status of interim orders made at private hearings. Under CPR interim applications may be heard in private where made without notice and where it would be unjust to the respondent to allow publicity where he has not had opportunity to respond. The claimant said that the arrangement had been agreed to only when it became clear that the costs of this incidental litigation had become disproportionate. Though the interveners had in effect been successful in that the orders had remained private, considerations of open justice had been sufficient to justify the claimant’s attempts to bring the issue back before the courts. The litigation had been substantial, and the amounts involved reflected that, but the correct order was to make no order as to costs.

Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 3092 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 44
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Entick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
Cited – Hodgson and others v Imperial Tobacco Limited Gallagher Limited etc CA 12-Feb-1998
A large number of plaintiffs brought actions against the defendants, three tobacco companies, claiming damages for personal injuries by reason of cancer which they claimed was caused by smoking cigarettes manufactured by the defendants. A hearing . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Binyan Mohamed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 26-Feb-2010
The claimant had sought public disclosure of documents supplied to the defendant by US security services which might support his claim that he had been tortured by the US, and that the defendant knew of it. The draft judgment was to be handed down . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.449398

Amin and Another v Mullings and Another: QBD 17 Feb 2011

The parties disputed the uplift applicable where a road traffic personal injury claim was settled on the day before the full trial, and whether ‘ the learned Recorder erred in holding that the claim concluded at trial because the Claimant’s claim because settlement of the claim was reached on the day fixed for the trial. Accordingly he held that the Claimant was entitled to recover a 100% uplift in counsel’s and solicitor’s fees. If the Recorder erred in so holding, the Claimant sought to uphold the 100% increase in fees on the basis that the claim was concluded at trial because the quantum of the Defendant’s counterclaim was determined at a hearing and the claim and counterclaim together formed the claim which was concluded at trial.’
Held: The phrase ‘at trial’ is defined at CPR 45.15(6)(b), and the recorder was in error in thinking otherwise, and ‘The trigger for entitlement to a 100% uplift in fees is not a settlement on a particular date but a settlement or conclusion after a trial, defined as a hearing, has commenced. It would be straining the use of language to say that a trial has ‘commenced’ after the beginning of the day fixed for trial although the hearing has not yet started.’

Slade J
[2011] EWHC 278 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 45.15(6)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Deepak Sitapuria v Moorzadi Khan 10-Dec-2007
(Liverpool County Court) In relation to provisions in the CPR dealing with uplift of fees in employer’s liability cases, a trial has not commenced for the purposes of the uplift in solicitor’s fees if a settlement is reached before the hearing of . .
Cited – Dahele v Thomas Bates and Sons Ltd SCCO 17-Apr-2007
The court heard and accepted an argument that there was a lacuna in the CPR provisions relating to the uplift in counsel’s fees in the equivalent rules relating to employer’s liability claims. The rules relating to counsel’s fees unlike those . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.429639

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 time for making the request usung the CPR.
Held: The claim failed. CPR and the Practice Direction have no relevance to the correct construction of the 2000 Regulations. The judge was given no discretion under the rules, and no good reason had been put forward to explain the delay.

Cox J DBE
[2010] EWHC 906 (QB)
Bailii
Community Legal Service (Costs Protection) Regulations 2000 5(3)(c), Civil Procedure Rules 44.17
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re C (Legal Aid: Preparation of Bill of Costs) CA 2001
The appellant argued that the Costs Practice Direction, supplementing Parts 43-48 of the CPR, had the same force in law as the Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1991; and that they impliedly amended or repealed them in so . .
Cited – Regina (Gunn) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Regina (Kelly) v Same Regina (Zahid Khan) v Same CA 14-Jun-2001
The new Regulations and court rules expressly reserved to a costs judge the decision about whether a costs order should be made against the Legal Services Commission. The former practice of the trial judge making this decision must no longer apply. . .
Cited – Sayers v Clarke Walker (A Firm) CA 10-Jul-2002
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – D and D W v Portsmouth Hospital NHS; in re W (A Child) CA 3-May-2006
The claimants had sought court orders against the hospital to secure continuing life-supporting treatment for their daughter who had been born very severely disabled. The Trust now sought their costs from the various actions.
Held: The parents . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.408682

Hall v Rover Financial Services Ltd (Gb) (T/A Land Rover Financial Services): SCCO 10 Oct 2002

The Claimant, who had acquired a Range Rover fro a hire-purchaser, had, the County Court Judge held, obtained good title to the car and so was awarded pounds 38,000 damages against the Defendant finance company who had seized the Range Rover car because it had previously been let out by them to a company called Albahall. The Judge however made no order as to costs in favour of the Claimant. His judgment on costs in full read as follows:
‘So far as costs are concerned, I do not think that this is a proceeding whose necessity arose from the way in which the original purchase from Albahall was made, in circumstances which, as I have tried to make clear in my judgment, ought to have excited suspicion on the part of the purchaser. It, as I held, did not excite such suspicion but it nonetheless is a transaction which accordingly properly excited the suspicion of the Defendant. Since that suspicion on the part of the Defendant arises from what I regard to some extent as misconduct on the part of the Claimant, and I think this is one of those unusual cases where I am justified in making no order for costs in favour of the successful Claimant.’
The Claimant appealed on the question of costs with the permission of the Single Judge and a two Judge court reversed the trial Judge’s decision. That court held that whilst a trial Judge has a very wide discretion in respect of costs he ought not to deprive a Claimant of all or part of his or her costs on the ground of misconduct where the alleged misconduct does not form part of the proceedings, but is conduct extraneous to or preceding, those proceedings.

Longmore and Tuckey LJ j
[2002] EWHC 9033 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.235595

Broadhurst and Another v Tan and Another: CA 23 Feb 2016

‘These appeals are concerned with a point of construction which arises from the apparent tension between the rules fixing costs in most lower value personal injury cases (found in section IIIA of Part 45 of the CPR) and the provisions in Part 36 which specifically apply to such claims.’

[2016] EWCA Civ 94
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560170

Ineos Upstream Ltd and Others v Persons Unknown: ChD 21 Dec 2017

Morgan J
[2017] EWHC 3427 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.602616

Sugar Hut Group Ltd and Others v A J Insurance Service (A Partnership): CA 3 Feb 2016

Appeal against a costs order made by Eder J in the Commercial Court after a three day hearing to assess the quantum of damages to which the Claimants/Appellants were entitled, liability having earlier been compromised on terms that the Defendant/Respondent pay 65% of the Claimants’ recoverable losses.

Longmore, Tomlinson, McCombe LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 46
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559509

RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh and Company Kg (UK Production) No 2 – Order and Costs: SC 21 Jul 2010

The main judgment had not attempted to settle all issues between the parties, and much remained to be done. Any order would not be a final one. As to costs, each party had succeeded in one respect or another, but ‘at the end of this whole process RTS has had a significantly greater success than Muller.’ Though each side had made Part 36 offers, none had direct relevance to the appeal. RTS had already made some payments on account and it was correct that Muller should also now make an appropriate payment. Orders accordingly.
Lord Clarke said: ‘The general principles are not in doubt. Whether there is a binding contract between the parties and, if so, upon what terms depends upon what they have agreed. It depends not upon their subjective state of mind, but upon a consideration of what was communicated between them by words or conduct, and whether that leads objectively to a conclusion that they intended to create legal relations and had agreed upon all the terms which they regarded or the law requires as essential for the formation of legally binding relations. Even if certain terms of economic or other significance have not been finalised, an objective appraisal of their words and conduct may lead to the conclusion that they did not intend agreement of such terms to be a precondition to a concluded and legally binding agreement.’

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Mance, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke
[2010] UKSC 38
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Principal Judgment – RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh and Company Kg (UK Production) SC 10-Mar-2010
The parties had reached agreement in outline and sought to have the contract formalised, but went ahead anyway. They now disputed whether an agreement had been created and as to its terms if so.
Held: It was unrealistic to suggest that no . .

Cited by:
Cited – Wells v Devani SC 13-Feb-2019
Mr W was selling apartments in a block of flats. Mr D, an estate agent, sought commission. W argued that D had not had signed his terms, and that therefore no contract existed. The court considered whether a contract had come into being when a major . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.421098

Crooks v Hendricks Lovell Ltd: CA 15 Jan 2016

The court was asked as to the meaning of a defendant’s offer to settle a claim for damages for personal injury under CPR Part 36, and the consequences of that offer for costs once judgment had been given for the claimant and a revised certificate of recoverable benefits issued by the Compensation Recovery Unit

Moore-Bick, Arden, Lindblom LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 8
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558723

Baxter, Regina (on The Application of) v Lincolnshire County Council: CA 18 Dec 2015

This case raises the issue of how costs should be determined in the Administrative Court when the parties have settled their differences in an agreed order which records that the liability for costs should be determined by a Single Judge on the papers.

Floyd, Simon LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1290
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558053

Rees and Another v Gateley Wareing (A Firm) and Another: ChD 3 Dec 2013

Various defined issues in relation to a contingency fee agreement entered into by a firm of solicitors with their clients. In summary, the issues relate to the interpretation and application of the agreement and its enforceability, having regard to section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Rule 8 of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules 1990 and the common law rules as to champerty.

Mr Justice Morgan
[2013] EWHC 3708 (Ch), [2014] 2 Costs LO 210, [2013] 50 EG 103
Bailii
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58
England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.518583

Mahme Trust Reg and others v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc: ChD 14 Jul 2006

Evans-Lombe J
[2006] EWHC 1782 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Mahme Trust v Lloyds TSB Bank plc ChD 29-Jul-2004
The claimant began an action in England. The defendant sought a stay, saying the appropriate forum was Switzerland.
Held: The defendant was a truly multi-national orgaisation and had branches in many countries. The choice of forum belongs to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.243154