Category: Costs

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Nobu Su and Others: ComC 13 Feb 2014

[2014] EWHC 275 (Comm), [2014] 2 Costs LR 307
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su ComC 20-Mar-2014
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others CA 14-May-2014
The claimant had obtained a freezing order in standard form against the defendant company. The Director of the company had similar sole positions in three other companies. The claimant obtained a similar order against the assets of the other . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd and Others v Nobu Su/Hsin Chi Su (Aka Su Hsin Chi; Aka Nobu Morimoto) and Others ComC 5-Nov-2014
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su CA 16-Sep-2019
Application for bail after committal for contempt on finding of guilt of numerous breaches of court orders relating to the case. . .
See Also – Lakatamia v Su CA 24-Sep-2019
Application for an extension of time for appeal against a committal order. The grounds for the committal were multiple breaches of freezing orders, orders requiring disclosure of assets and orders requiring the defendant not to leave the . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 30-Jan-2020
Application for committal for contempt. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su (Aka Su Hsin Chi; Aka Nobu Moritomo) and Others ComC 3-Apr-2020
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 8-Apr-2020
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 9-Nov-2020
Application by Lakatamia pursuant to CPR Part 31.22 to use documents obtained from the Respondent, Mr Su, in these proceedings pursuant to a search order made in related proceedings bearing the claim . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 11-Dec-2020
Application by the claimant, Lakatamia, to re-amend its committal application notice to incorporate 11 additional alleged contempts on the part of the first defendant, . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Nobu Su and Others ComC 25-Jan-2021
Application to re-re-amend the Particulars of Claim and the second is an application for specific disclosure also made by the claimant, Lakatamia. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 15-Apr-2021
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others ChD 1-Jul-2021
Interpretation of the phrase ‘has had a place of residence’ in section 263I(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and Others ComC 8-Jul-2021
Alleged cause of action in unlawful means conspiracy as to whether the Defendants including the Second Defendant Toshiko Morimoto (‘Madam Su’) conspired together to injure Lakatamia by unlawful means, namely by the dissipation of two assets of Madam . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others CA 30-Jul-2021
Use of passport orders in enforcement of collection of judgment debt. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su ComC 15-Sep-2021
Reasons for dismissal of appeal from maximum sentence of two years imprisonment for contempt. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Costs

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.521245

Baillon v Gwent Police (Practice and Procedure: Costs): EAT 25 Feb 2015

EAT Practice and Procedure: Costs – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant had been unfairly constructively dismissed by his employer. In the course of the Remedies Hearings: (i) the Employment Tribunal assessed the Claimant’s loss of income for the period after his dismissal; (ii) the Employment Tribunal stated that the Claimant would not have left his employment before he was 60, following which the parties agreed a figure for pension loss of andpound;429,000 odd; (iii) the Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s application for costs.
On appeal and cross-appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal:
(i) Allowed the Claimant’s appeal on the assessment of his loss of income: the Employment Tribunal’s figures were arbitrary and had no clear rationale;
(ii) Dismissed the employer’s cross-appeal against the pension loss: although the Employment Tribunal’s conclusion about the Claimant leaving employment may have been perverse, the parties had subsequently agreed the figure for pension loss without seeking to challenge the conclusion in any way;
(iii) Dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the refusal to award him costs: however egregious an employer’s conduct in relation to an unfair dismissal, costs can only be awarded against them if they have acted unreasonably in their conduct of the proceedings.

Shanks HHJ
[2015] UKEAT 0354 – 14 – 2502
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545902

Webb v Liverpool Womens’ NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 1 Apr 2015

The court had found the defendant negligent in its management of the claimant’s labour. The parties had settled the damages at a level more advantageous to the claimant than earlier offers. The parties now disputed the claimant’s contention that ‘the consequences of Part 36.14(3) should apply and that the claimant should have all her costs on an indemnity basis from the expiry of the relevant period plus interest thereon at the enhanced ‘Part 36 rate’ plus the enhancement of damages specified in 36.14(3)(a) and (d).’

Saffmaan HHJ
[2015] EWHC 449 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545140

Dalton and Others v British Telecommunications Plc: QBD 13 Mar 2015

The court considered the success fee payable by a defendant employer in the (very common) situation where a claim for damages for noise-induced hearing loss is settled before a trial has commenced. The issue is whether, in that context, noise-induced hearing loss is to be regarded as a disease.

Phillips J
[2015] EWHC 616 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 45

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544298

Excalibur Ventures Llc v Texas Keystone Inc and Others: ComC 3 Feb 2015

Christopher Clarke LJ
[2015] EWHC 566 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Excalibur Ventures Llc v Texas Keystone Inc and Others CA 18-Nov-2016
Excalibur had entered into a conditional fee agreement with its solicitors to suport its intended claim against the respondents. Funders had advanced some andpound;13m to take the mater forward. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543930

Shovelar and Others v Lane and Others: CA 12 Jul 2011

The married couple, now deceased, had made wills in identical form, but the surviving husband made a new will. His children in law succeeded in their claim that the original wills had been mutual. The defendants appealed against the costs order made.

Ward, Arden, Moore-Bick LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 802, [2012] 1 WLR 637, [2011] 5 Costs LR 832, 14 ITELR 147, [2012] 1 FCR 318, [2011] WTLR 1411, [2011] 4 All ER 669
Bailii
England and Wales

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.441590

Jackson-Ebben and Wine Innovations Ltd and Nash (Patent): IPO 24 Dec 2014

Costs – This was a Decision on costs following an earlier substantive Decision on entitlement in favour of the defendants. An award on the Comptroller’s scale was made to the defendants.

Mr J Elbro
[2014] UKIntelP o56814, GB 2469554
Bailii
Patents Act 1977 8 12 37
England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543165

In re Capita Translation and Interpreting Ltd: FC 2 Feb 2015

Several sets of proceedings had begun, for which interpreters were required. The company had contracted to supply translaters, but had failed to do so leaving the cases to be postponed. The court now considered an application for costs wasted by the parties to the proceedings.
Held: Granted.

Sir James Munby
[2015] EWFC 5
Bailii

Family, Costs

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.542925

Oyston v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc: SCCO 16 May 2006

The client and his solicitor had entered into a CFA in 2002 which provided for a success fee of 100% of reasonable costs, plus andpound;50,000 if the claimant recovered damages in excess of andpound;1m. This was a champertous agreement at common law which failed to comply with s 58 of the 1990 Act. In July 2005 the claimant obtained a costs order. He and his solicitors then entered into a Deed of Variation which omitted all reference to the andpound;50,000. Had the agreement been in this form from the outset it would have complied with s 58 and been enforceable.
Held: The Deed was ‘ineffective to rectify the situation as against the paying party . . Following the decision of the Privy Council in Kellar it cannot be right that a Deed of Variation can be used to impose a greater burden on the paying party than existed before judgment. The fact that the client is in agreement is of no assistance. If the position were otherwise it would be open to solicitors and their successful client to, for example, alter the level of success fee late in the day.’

Senior Costs Judge Hurst
[2006] EWHC 90053 (Costs)
Bailii, Gazette
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Kellar v Williams PC 7-Feb-2000
PC (Turks and Caicos Islands) The parties disputed whether sums paid to the company had been by way of loan or as capital contributions which after payment of debts were distributable among the shareholders.
Cited by:
Cited – Radford and Another v Frade and Others QBD 8-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to the terms on which solicitors and Counsel were retained to act for the defendants. The appeals did not raise any issues concerning costs practice, and were by way of review of the Costs Judge’s rulings, and not by way of . .
Cited – Radford and Another v Frade and Others QBD 8-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to the terms on which solicitors and Counsel were retained to act for the defendants. The appeals did not raise any issues concerning costs practice, and were by way of review of the Costs Judge’s rulings, and not by way of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.242321

Perry’s Motor Sales Ltd v Evans: EAT 17 Nov 2014

EAT Disability Discrimination: Reasonable Adjustments – JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination – JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: just and equitable – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Disability Discrimination – failure to comply with an obligation to make reasonable adjustments (section 21 Equality Act 2010)
The Employment Tribunal had not confused its findings under this claim with those relevant to the direct discrimination/discrimination arising from disability claims (both of which it found were presented out of time). It had found (as was effectively conceded on the Respondent’s evidence and findings from the grievance process) that the adjustments higher management intended should be made had been imperfectly implemented in the workshop. That failure of implementation was not limited to the comments made to the Claimant but included the allocation of work. That was a finding open to the Employment Tribunal on the evidence and justified the conclusion reached.
Time limit
That said, the Employment Tribunal’s findings as to the breach of the reasonable adjustments obligation raised a question as to whether it had properly considered the application of the time limit in this regard. Although it had apparently found that the duty continued and was still live as at the date of the termination of the Claimant’s employment, it had found that, after 6 September 2012, the Respondent ‘had a will to deal with reasonable adjustments that was practicable’, suggesting that it had not found there to have been a continuing breach. This was a matter that should go back to the same Employment Tribunal to consider again, in the light of its findings of fact relevant to this point. Should it conclude that the claim had indeed been presented out of time it would then need to consider whether it would be just and equitable to extend time. As more than one outcome was possible on this question, this was a matter for the Employment Tribunal and it would not be for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to substitute its view.
Constructive Dismissal
Given the dismissal of the first ground of appeal (the finding of a breach of the obligation to make reasonable adjustments) the Employment Tribunal’s finding that this also breached the implied obligation to maintain trust and confidence was not undermined. In any event, the Employment Tribunal had found there were other factors which similarly breached the implied term; the comments made and the delay over the grievance appeal. The Employment Tribunal had been entitled to reach the conclusions it had, either on a ‘last straw’ basis or as part of the context in which the last act (the delay of the grievance appeal) had to be seen. The findings made in this regard were not perverse and the Employment Tribunal had not erred in law by failing to find receipt of statutory sick pay amounted to affirmation on the part of the Claimant in circumstances where he still had an outstanding grievance.
Costs
Upon the Respondent’s application for part of its costs (in terms of the fee for lodging the appeal and the hearing fee), given its partial success on the appeal: application refused.
For the most part the Respondent had been unsuccessful. What might have been seen as the two main grounds of appeal had failed. The Respondent would have incurred fees in order to pursue Grounds 1 and 3 in any event and there was no indication that it had made any approach to the Claimant as regards a possible agreement as to the outcome of Ground 2. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has a broad discretion in respect of costs and although it might generally be expected that the losing party should reimburse a successful Appellant in terms of these fees, it should not be assumed that a pro rata percentage of the fees will automatically be awarded in a case where an appeal is only partly successful.

Eady QC HHJ
[2014] UKEAT 0275 – 14 – 1711
Bailii
Equality Act 2010 21
England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Costs

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541545

Broni and Others v Ministry of Defence: QBD 20 Jan 2015

‘three appeals before the court which raise the same point of law, namely whether the fixed success fee regime in (pre- 1 April 2013) CPR Part 45 Section IV applies to claims brought by members of the armed forces in respect of injuries suffered at work.’

Supperstone J
[2015] EWHC 66 (QB)
Bailii

Costs, Personal Injury, Armed Forces

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541571

Market and Opinion Research International Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 15 Jan 2015

COSTS – withdrawal of case by HMRC before FTT – claim for costs by appellant on basis that HMRC had acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings – rule 10(1)(b), Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – whether FTT applied the correct legal test – whether the reasons for HMRC were not properly disclosed and FTT was led into error

[2015] UKUT 12 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541530

Sousa v London Borough of Waltham Forest Council: CA 3 Mar 2011

The claimant’s house was damaged by tree roots. He claimed against his insurers, and his insurers had claimed in turn against the local authority responsible for the street. That case was concluded, but the authority now challenged the success fee payable to the insurance company’s solictors.

[2011] EWCA Civ 194, [2011] 1 WLR 2197, [2011] 10 EG 107
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.430360

Mr Karatzalidis Struck Out Of The List; Violation Of Art 6-1 ; Non-Pecuniary Damage – Financial Award; Costs And Expenses Award – Domestic Proceedings ; Costs And Expenses Award – Convention Proceedings: ECHR 19 Mar 1997

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Case of Mr. Karatzalidis struck out of the list; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings

20417/92, 20416/92, 20418/92, 20419/92, 20420/92, 20421/92, 20422/92, 20423/92, 20424/92, 20425/92, 20426/92, 20427/92, 20428/92, 20673/92, 20674/92, 20675/92, 20718/92, 20719/92, 20720/92, 20722/92, 20725/92, 20726/92, 20727/92, 20738/92, 21716/93, 21718/93, 21719/93, 21270/93, 21721/93, 21722/93, 21724/93, 21725/93, 21726/93, 21727/93, 21728/93, 21729/93, 21730/93, 21731/93, 21734/93, 21735/93, 21736/93, 21737/93, 21738/93, 21740/93, 21742/93, 21744/93, 21745/93, 21746/93, 21747/93, 21748/93, 21750/93, 21998/93, 22000/93, 20721/92, 20723/92, 20724/92, 22213/93, 22214/93, 22215/93, 22216/93, 22217/93, 22218/93, 22220/93, 22221/93
Human Rights

Human Rights, Costs

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.165481

European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland: ECJ 13 Feb 2014

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters – Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings

R Silva de Lapuerta, P
[2014] EUECJ C-530/11, [2014] Env LR D2, [2014] 3 WLR 853, ECLI:EU:C:2014:67, [2014] 3 CMLR 6, [2014] WLR(D) 69
Bailii, WLRD
Directive 2003/35/EC
European
Citing:
Opinion – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .
AT SC (1) – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .
ECJ – Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
At SC (2) – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2) SC 11-Dec-2013
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Environment

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540523

Salvesen v Riddell and Another: SCS 6 Jan 2015

The appellant enrolled a motion requesting payment by the Land court of the costs occasioned in a long running legal dispute.

The Lord President
[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 1
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
At Land Court – Salvesen v Riddell SLC 29-Jul-2010
SLC Agricultural holdings – limited partnership tenancy – limited partner being agent of landlord – notice of dissolution of partnership validly given – notice given on 3 Feb 2003 – expected change of legislation . .
At SCS – Salvesen v Riddell and Another SCS 15-Mar-2012
Second Division – The court allowed an appeal under section 88(1) of the 2003 Act from a decision of the Scottish Land Court. The section was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court proceeded on the basis that section 72 . .
At SC – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Costs

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540502

Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2): ECJ 11 Apr 2013

ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings

L Bay Larsen, acting as P
[2013] EUECJ C-260/11, [2013] WLR(D) 136, [2013] 1 WLR 2914, [2013] 3 CMLR 18, [2014] All ER (EC) 207
Bailii
TFEU 267, Directive 85/337/EEC, Directive 2003/35/EC 10a, Directive 96/61/EC 15a
European
Citing:
Opinion – Edwards v Environment Agency ECJ 18-Oct-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Directive 85/337/EEC – Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment – Directive 96/61/EC – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Access . .
At HL – Edwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
Reference – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .
At SC (1) – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .
ECJ – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .

Cited by:
See Also – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .
ECJ (Opinion) – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2) SC 11-Dec-2013
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to . .
ECJ – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 13-Feb-2014
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters – Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Costs

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540521

Hull and Holderness Magistrates’ Court v Darroch and Another: Admn 15 Dec 2014

The applicants had successfully appealed against summary convictions under the 1988 Act for the dishonest receipt of broadcasts of Premier League football matches. They now sought a third party order for costs agaiinst the League despite their having had no direct part in the prosecution.

Foskett, Carr DBE JJ
[2014] EWHC 4184 (Admin)
Bailii
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539843

Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood: CA 4 Dec 2014

The newspaper appealed from the award of costs to the claimant who had succeeded in his claim of defamation.

Macur, Sharp LJJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd
[2014] EWCA Civ 1574
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 19-Dec-2013
The claimant policeman alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant newspaper. The defendant advanced two substantive defences, a defence of public interest (Reynolds) privilege and justification. After protracted litigation, the . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Times Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others SC 11-Apr-2017
Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539588

Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No.4): ChD 18 Oct 1999

Mr Justice Neuberger
[1999] EWHC 835 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2) ChD 24-Mar-1999
The claimant intended to seek recovery of a very substantial sum from the defendant. On learning of the defendant’s intention to sell its assets, it sought an order freezing them.
Held: The court has the discretion to order a freezing of a . .
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Limited Admn 26-Jun-1998
The court heard an appeal by the Commissioners from the VAT Duties Tribunal that ‘Spreadable butter’ and ‘Ammix butter’ from New Zealand made and imported by the respondent are ‘manufactured directly from milk or cream’, and are not ‘recombined . .
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 3) ChD 8-Jul-1999
The Civil Procedure Rules have not changed the common law rules which say that an interlocutory order for costs could not be varied by another judge sitting at first instance, except only in exceptional circumstances where it appeared for example . .

Cited by:
See Also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd) CA 17-Aug-2000
When an appeal is lodged in a VAT dispute, the discretion as to whether to require the appellant to lodge security for costs in the appeal, was a decision exclusively to be decided by the tribunal itself. A decision as to such security could not be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.263750

Muwonge, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Consent Orders: Costs: Guidance) (IJR): UTIAC 7 Nov 2014

UTIAC (i) There appears to be a practice, relatively entrenched, whereby an AOS which contains a concession, with or without an accompanying draft consent order, incorporates a claim for costs, liquidated or otherwise. In most cases, the claim for costs has no justification.
(ii) There may be cases, likely to be small in number, where an AOS which embodies a concession on behalf of the Secretary of State, with or without an accompanying draft consent order, justifiably and reasonably incorporates a claim for costs. In such cases, good practice dictates that the AOS should state, briefly, the justification for such claim.
(iii) Where a draft consent order is tabled, both parties should proactively take all necessary and appropriate steps designed to achieve consensual resolution within a period of (at most) three weeks.
(iv) Where consensual resolution is not achieved within the timescale recommended above, this should operate as a bilateral incentive to redouble efforts to do so.
(v) In every case possessing the factor of an unexecuted draft consent order, it is essential to provide the Upper Tribunal with each party’s explanation, brief and focussed, for non-execution. This explanation should be provided by both parties, in writing:
(a) Within four weeks of the date of the AOS or, if different, the date of receipt of the draft consent order.
(b) Where a case is listed, not later than five clear working days in advance of the listing date.
(c) In cases where there is any material alteration or evolution in the terms of the explanation, not later than two clear days in advance of the listing date.
(vi) It is recognised that, exceptionally, there may be cases in which for good and sustainable reasons a consent order cannot be reasonably executed until a very late stage indeed, postdating the periods and landmarks noted above. However, the experience of the Upper Tribunal to date is that consent orders are very frequently not executed and presented to the Tribunal for approval until the last moment, frequently late on the day before the scheduled hearing and that no good reason is proffered for the parties’ failure to do so at an earlier stage. This practice is unacceptable.
(vii) The practice whereby executed consent orders materialise during the period of 48 hours prior to the listing date is unsatisfactory and unacceptable in the great majority of cases. The Upper Tribunal recognises that there may be a small number of cases where, exceptionally, this is unavoidable.
(viii) In matters of this kind, parties and their representatives are strongly encouraged to communicate electronically with the Tribunal and, further, to seek confirmation that important communications and/or attachments have been received.
(ix) In determining issues of costs, Upper Tribunal Judges will take into account the extent to which the recommendations and exhortations tabulated above have been observed and will scrutinise closely every explanation and justification proffered for non-compliance.

McCloskey J P
[2014] UKUT 514 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Costs

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539114

Brown v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Oct 2014

FTTTx Costs – s10 Tribunal Procedure Rules 2009 – whether Appellant entitled to an order for costs on the basis that HMRC had acted unreasonably in defending an appeal by the Appellant against the imposition of a penalty for late payment of income tax – the Tribunal having found on the facts that the Appellant had reasonable cause to believe that a time to pay arrangement had been agreed – no – application dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 984 (TC)
Bailii
Tribunal Procedure Rules 2009 10
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538981

Pentecost v John: QBD 10 Jul 2015

The defendant had lost its defence of a personal injury claim, but succeesfully challenged the claim on the basis that a proper analysis of the contractual framework led to the inevitable conclusion that BBK had no enforceable claim against the claimant in respect of those costs incurred after 2 July 2009. The consequence of this finding was that by the operation of the indemnity principle a very considerable proportion of the costs claimed against the defendant were thereby rendered irrecoverable and BBK were substantially out of pocket.

Turner J
[2015] EWHC 1970 (QB), [2015] 4 Costs LO 497
Bailii
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58
England and Wales

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.550078

Maroil Trading Inc and Another v Cally Shipholdings Inc and Others: ComC 27 Oct 2020

Firstly, how much security should the claimants provide in respect of the Part 7 proceedings; secondly, the question in relation to the security in relation to the third party costs, and then, moving on from that, the amount of third party costs.

Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE
[2020] EWHC 3041 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.657563

GSM Export (UK) Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 14 Oct 2014

PROCEDURE – application for an order for security for costs – CPR, rule 25 – whether reason to believe appellants will be unable to pay respondents’ costs if ordered to do so – significance of ATE insurance – whether just to make an order in all the circumstances of the case – weight to be attached to lateness of application

[2014] UKUT 457 (TCC), [2015] BPIR 47, [2015] STC 504
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 25
England and Wales

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538013

Dickinson v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: UTLC 29 Aug 2014

UTLC COSTS – claim for compensation for injurious affection – costs capping – application to join non-party for costs – section 29 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, as amended

[2014] UKUT 372 (LC)
Bailii
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 29, Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 10
England and Wales

Land, Costs

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537496

Kellie and Another v Wheatley and Lloyd Architects Ltd: TCC 27 Aug 2014

His Honour Judge Keyser QC
[2014] EWHC 2886 (TCC)
Bailii
Citing:
Main judgment – Kellie and Another v Wheatley and Lloyd Architects Ltd TCC 3-Jul-2014
Action for damages – building of detached garage with flat rather than pitched roof – unnecessary. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537339

J Sainsbury plc v Enfield London Borough Council: 1989

Land had been conveyed in 1894, the purchaser covenanting with the vendor (alone). The fact that the vendor retained other land was apparent from other parts of the conveyance, but the covenant was not expressed to be for the benefit of that land. The first issue was from what facts or documents might the intention that the covenants should enure for the benefit of the retained land be inferred or expressed. On that Morritt J summarised the rival submissions at 595H-596A as follows:
‘the plaintiffs contend that the intention must be manifested in the conveyance in which the covenant was contained when construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, including any necessary implication in the conveyance from those surrounding circumstances. The defendants claim that such intention may be inferred from surrounding circumstances which fall short of those which would necessitate an implication in the conveyance itself.’
Morritt J held that the authorities demonstrated that the plaintiffs’ submission was correct (at 596F). I agree. The relevant conveyance can be construed in the light of surrounding circumstances, and, like any other instrument, its interpretation can depend not only on its express terms but on any necessary implication; but the exercise remains one of interpreting the document, not of inferring intentions from surrounding circumstances alone.
Morritt J first asked from what fact or facts might it be inferred that the intention in a conveyance was that restrictive covenants should enure for the benefit of the retained land, and recorded the contentions of the parties as follows: ‘On the first issue, the plaintiffs contend that the intention must be manifested in the conveyance in which the covenant was contained when construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, including any necessary implication in the conveyance from those surrounding circumstances. The defendants claim that such intention may be inferred from surrounding circumstances which fall short of those which would necessitate an implication in the conveyance itself.’
Held: The plaintiffs’ submission was correct, and, having considered the surrounding circumstances: ‘There are no words in the conveyance indicating any such intention, nor do I consider the surrounding circumstances necessitate any implication.’ The successful applicant for a declaration under section 84(2) should be paid its costs by the defendants.

Morritt J
[1989] 1 WLR 590
Law of Property Act 1925 84(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Not Followed – 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 . .
Cited – Barnet London Borough Council; Re: Land at Claremont Road comprising Hendon Football Club and Football Ground LT 10-Jul-2006
LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – entitlement to benefit – preliminary issue – whether covenant impliedly annexed to land – surrounding circumstances – held no entitlement – objectors not admitted.
The landowners . .
Cited – Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams and Others ChD 29-Jan-2010
The claimant sought a declaration that restrictive covenants imposed in 1896 affecting its land were no longer effective.
Held: The declaration was granted. Under the 1881 Act (as opposed to the 1925 Act) covenants were not automatically . .
Cited – Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others CA 21-Dec-2021
This appeal concerns the question whether an area of land in Bath known as the Recreation Ground, commonly called ‘the Rec’, is still subject to a restrictive covenant imposed in a conveyance of the Rec dated 6 April 1922 (‘the 1922 conveyance’). . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Land

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.220713

Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others (Costs : Special Considerations): ChD 27 Oct 2020

[2020] EWHC 2856 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others (PRE-1926 Restrictive Covenants Affecting Land) ChD 13-Oct-2020
The Court was asked whether a covenant had been attached to the land.
Held: the effect of a 1922 conveyance was to annex the benefit of the covenant to land of the vendor and his tenants adjoining or near the Rec. That meant that Mr White and . .

Cited by:
See Also – Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others CA 21-Dec-2021
This appeal concerns the question whether an area of land in Bath known as the Recreation Ground, commonly called ‘the Rec’, is still subject to a restrictive covenant imposed in a conveyance of the Rec dated 6 April 1922 (‘the 1922 conveyance’). . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.655191

Long v Value Properties Ltd and Another: ChD 30 Sep 2014

This appeal raises the following questions (i) whether a breach of the CPR has occurred here, (ii) if so, what is the applicable sanction, if any, for that breach, and (iii) whether relief from any such sanction should be granted.

Barling J
[2014] EWHC 2981 (Ch)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.537246

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 considering the merits that a view can be taken of the likelihood of an award of costs in favour of the respondent. This is because the default regime in family cases is no order as to costs. This is so whether the claim is about children or about financial remedies.

Mr Justice Mostyn
[2021] EWHC 3063 (Fam), [2021] 4 WLR 146
Bailii
Family Proceedings Rules 20.6 20.7
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pray And Others v Edie 29-May-1786
The lessor of the plaintiff in an action of ejectment, being resident abroad, was required to give security for costs. . .
Cited – Greenwich Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and Others ChD 13-Apr-1999
It is permissible for a court to order security for costs to be paid against a plaintiff limited company incorporated out of the jurisdiction, provided it appeared just to do so. There is no need to satisfy the apparent requirements of the Companies . .
Cited – Aoun v Bahri and Another ComC 6-Feb-2002
Application for security for costs against the claimant. . .
Cited – Infinity Distribution Ltd v The Khan Partnership Llp CA 20-Apr-2021
Appeal raising a question on the form of security for costs to be provided where the Court is satisfied that it is an appropriate case to order security.
Held: The gateway conditions for an order for security of costs are matters of fact, not . .
Cited – Ackerman v Ackerman and Others ChD 12-Aug-2011
The parties disputed the division of assets within a group of companies. . .
Cited – Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd 1987
When considering an application for security for costs against a litigant resident in the EU, the courts must allow for the new additional scope for enforcement of any judgment under the 1982 Act. In this case, an order for security for costs . .
Cited – Re S (A Child) SC 25-Mar-2015
The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the . .
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 – Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions CA 1995
The court set out the principles to be applied by the court upon an application for security for costs.
1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light of all the relevant . .
Cited – TL v ML and others FD 9-Dec-2005
. .
Cited – Chernukhin and Others v Danilina CA 30-Jul-2018
Unusual appeal concerning the quantum of security for costs ordered. . .
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. . .
Cited – SS v MCP (No 2) FD 3-Nov-2021
Children – Custody rights – Jurisdiction – Allegation that mother wrongfully removing child born in England to India
As to an application for security for costs, ‘It is clear from the judgment of Moylan LJ in Re M that the burden of surmounting . .
Cited – Radu v Houston and Another CA 30-Oct-2006
Waller LJ doubted whether it was appropriate to make an order in the unless form. An order for security is intended to give a claimant a choice as to whether they put up security and continue with their action or withdraw the claim. That choice is . .
Cited – Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd CA 1973
The court exercises a full discretion when ordering security for costs.
Where a plaintiff who is ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction has no assets within it, he or she may still yet convince the court against ordering security for costs if . .
Cited – SZ v Birmingham City Council and Others FC 2-Mar-2021
Father’s application for contact with his children B, now aged 16 and S (known as K) aged 14. Both children are in the care of a local authority. B lives with the second respondent, the mother. K lives in a care home, but regularly visits his mother . .
Cited – Rubin v Rubin FD 10-Mar-2014
The court heard an application by the wife for a legal services payment order. . .
Cited – In re C (Children) (Family Proceedings: Case Management) CA 12-Oct-2012
The court has a general power summarily to dismiss a meritless claim for security for costs in a family case. . .
Cited – TL v ML and others FD 9-Dec-2005
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.669924

Banfield, Regina v: CACD 11 Sep 2014

The court was asked whether, when a representation order has been made by this court for leading counsel for an appellant, additional costs incurred on a private basis can be recovered by those acting for the appellant.

Sir John Thomas LCJ, Raffrty LJ, Holroyde J
[2014] EWCA Crim 1824
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536528

Virgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga: CACD 11 Sep 2014

Virgin had successfully taken a private prosecution against the defendants for copyright infringement. They sought an order for their costs to be paid from central funds. On taking confiscation proceedings, costs were now sought against the defendants. The court was asked what rates should apply.

Sir John Thomas LCJ, Raffrty LJ, Holroyde J
[2014] EWCA Crim 1823
Bailii
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 17, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Practice Direction On Costs In Criminal Proceedings CACD 3-Oct-2013
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536529

Total Fulfilment Logistics Ltd v May: UTLC 6 Aug 2014

UTLC RATING – costs -appeal against VTE decision – appeal withdrawn before hearing – Lands Chamber’s Simplified Procedure – whether appellant’s late withdrawal amounts to unreasonable behaviour – whether respondent VO entitled to wasted costs – held that it is not – Lands Chamber Practice Directions 2010

P D McCrea FRICS
[2014] UKUT 354 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating, Costs

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536070

The Lord Chancellor v Ahmed: Admn 15 Oct 2013

The defendant had been charged generally under a provision which allowed two possible offences. His advocate made his claim for the more serious offence, which fell into a more highly paid category. The Lord Chancellor appealed.
Held: The appealed failed: ‘It is quite clear that if a defendant is charged with two different offences and those two offences appear in different Classes, the trial advocate can choose which of the offences he is applying for payment in relation to, so that he can choose the one that will obviously pay him better if there is a difference in the level of remuneration’ and ‘Section 3(1)(e), as I have already stated, provides that where any entry in the table of offences specifies an offence as being contrary to a statutory provision, then subject to any express limitation in that entry the entry will include every offence contrary to that statutory provision whether or not the words of description in that entry are appropriate to cover all such offences. The only entry in the table of offences relating to an offence contrary to section 170(1)(b) is under Classes F, G and K, described as ‘fraudulent evasion of duty’. Unless those words in some way expressly limit the offence, then all other offences indicted under section 170(1)(b) would also fall in that category. ‘

Andrews J
[2013] EWHC 3642 (QB)
Bailii
Criminal Service Funding Order 2007

Costs, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536021

Kumon Educational UK Co Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Aug 2014

FTTTx PROCEDURE – extension of time for service of costs schedule – principles to be followed after Mitchell, McCarthy and Stone and Denton – whether new rule 3.9 of CPR to be followed – no – Leeds CC v HMRC and Denton followed – extension of time allowed

[2014] UKFTT 772 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535972

Tarafdar v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 8 Aug 2014

UTTC Costs – withdrawal by HMRC of case before First-tier Tribunal – whether HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 10(1)(b) – appellant argued that VAT assessment was fatally flawed – whether assessment made to best judgment – whether FTT erred in law in refusing appellant’s application for costs

[2014] UKUT 362 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Costs

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535712

Wagenaar v Weekend Travel Limited (T/A Ski Weekend): CA 31 Jul 2014

Vos LJ said: ‘This appeal raises two important issues: First, a question as to the vires of the provisions relating to Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (‘QOCS’) introduced into the CPR by Rules 44.13 to 44.17 in April 2013 as a result of the reforms that were proposed by Sir Rupert Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs Final Report (the ‘Jackson Report’); and secondly an issue as to whether QOCS applies not only to claims for damages for personal injuries brought by a claimant against a defendant, but also to claims for an indemnity or contribution brought by such a defendant against a third party, should the rules relating to QOCS be held to be valid.’

Laws, Floyd, Vos LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1105
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535461

Freeburn v Hunt: 2010

[2010] BPIR 325
Cited by:
Cited – Brook v Reed CA 25-Mar-2011
The court was asked ‘What relation should the costs and remuneration bear to the circumstances, and in particular the size, of the bankruptcy?’ The bankrupt had considered that the costs first awarded to the trustee in bankruptcy and the trustee’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.430879