Haigh v Westminster Magistrates Court and Others: Admn 8 Dec 2017

The Claimant sought judicial review of an order made against him for payment of defence wasted costs after he withdrew his private prosecution against the defendants. The claimant said that he had been dilatory in his claim.
Held: ‘wasted costs proceedings are ancillary to the substantive proceedings (in this case the substantive application for judicial review). For the reasons already given, there is an onus on the applicant for a wasted costs order in particular to proceed with due expedition. The applicants in the present matter have not done that.’

Judges:

Gross LJ, Nicol J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3197 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.601437

Eurochoice Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Nov 2020

Procedure – Respondents application for order that appellant and its director be jointly and severally liable to pay costs of and incidental to appeal – Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to make costs order against non-party – Yes – Whether such direction appropriate having regard to circumstances of the case – Yes – Whether party entitled to rely on unavailable decision – No – Application allowed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 449 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656845

McKenna v MGN Ltd: QBD 16 Jul 2007

Eady J considered the consequences in costs of a claimant’s assertion of malice in a failed defamation case: ‘There are numerous examples of libel actions in which the fact that malice has been pleaded causes delay and increased cost out of all proportion to its ultimate utility in furthering the overriding objective or arriving at a just result. There need to be available, therefore, in the modern era of civil litigation, suitable disciplinary mechanisms for discouraging unrealistic or tactical pleas of malice. People need to think carefully before alleging bad faith against journalists, newspapers groups or any other defendant just for the sake of it. If such allegations lead to additional cost, but ultimately do not stand up to scrutiny, it is quite right that this should be reflected in determining who should pay.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC B12 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoMcKenna v MGN Ltd QBD 28-Jul-2006
The claimant hypnotherapist said that the defendant had through its newspaper defamed him by accusing him of claiming a bogus PhD. . .

Cited by:

CitedWakefield (T/A Wills Probate and Trusts of Weybridge) v Ford and Another QBD 29-Jan-2009
The claimant, who advised in the preparation of wills, claimed in defamation against the defendant solicitors saying in a letter to another firm of solicitors that he had admitted negligence. There had been a ruling that the occasion had qualified . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.261906

Hobson and others v Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors and others: QBD 18 May 2006

The applicants had instructed the various defendant firms of solicitors to act for them in recovering damages arising from their former emploment with British Coal. The defendants had charged them administrative fees, which under the scheme they said should not have been charged. A group litigation order was sought.
Held: The court severely criticised the claimants: ‘this application is, in my judgment, misconceived and constitutes a gross abuse of the system which has been devised for the pursuit of group litigation where there is a valid group litigation issue; as to which see later. Not only was the application itself misconceived, but also it has been pursued in a manner which is both heavy handed and inept.’
The claimants had not set out how the defendant solicitors would be liable, the claims would have different forms against different solicitors, and were fact sensitive as against each firm. The enforceability of the agreements had not been explored, nor any alternative form of dispute resolution, any proper exploration of other forms of funding by legal aid or insurance. Costs estimates indicated that the claimants had incurred costs of over one hundred thousand pounds pursuing claims against one firm amounting to one thousand pounds. The application failed.

Judges:

Sir Michael Turner

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1134 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242211

Alois Bauer v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 12 Dec 1967

ECJ Procedure – interest in taking legal proceedings – type of interest justifying an application to the court Costs – applications by officials of the European Communities – costs which one party has unreasonably caused the opposite party to incur (rules of procedure, second subparagraph of article 69(3) and article 70)

Citations:

C-15/67, [1967] EUECJ C-15/67

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Costs

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131845

Wallace and Another v Brian Gale and Associates (A Firm): CA 5 Mar 1998

Agreed order for payments of ‘costs of the action’ included legal fees before action but not disbursements.

Citations:

Times 05-Mar-1998, Gazette 25-Mar-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 239, [1998] Fam Law 400, [1998] 1 FLR 1091, [1997] 2 Costs LR 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoWallace and Another v Brian Gale and Associates (A Firm) CA 31-Mar-1997
Costs in action after Tomlin Order included the costs of implementing the order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90258

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

When a claimant commenced litigating several issues, but succeeded only on some of the them, the rule allowing an award of costs to the generally successful party was not dependent upon questions of whether the party was reasonable to have raised them. The reasonableness of pursuing a point was not necessarily relevant. The sub-paragraph was distinct from other allowing issues as to the conduct of the parties. One purpose of the rules was to persuade parties to reduce the number of claims they made to encourage a reduction in the costs of litigation.

Judges:

Thomas J

Citations:

Times 25-May-2001, [2001] EWHC 500 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoStocznia Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc; In re Latrefeers Inc; Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co and others (No 2) CA 15-Mar-2000
Possible claims against a foreign company for misfeasance, or wrongful or fraudulent trading might be sufficient to justify proceedings here to wind up a foreign registered company. A second requirement is that some person within this jurisdiction . .
CitedPLG Research Ltd and Another v Ardon International Ltd and Others ChD 25-Nov-1994
A patent infingement claim was met by the assertion that the material covered had been disclosed before the patent had been obtained. The court was asked as to the test of whether the information in a claim had been disclosed. Aldous J said: ‘Mr. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLatvian Shipping Company and Others v Stocznia Gdanska Sa CA 21-Jun-2002
A payment condition was just that and that a failure to pay entitled the seller to terminate at common law. Rix LJ said: ‘It is established law that, where one party to a contract has repudiated it, the other may validly accept that repudiation by . .
See AlsoStocznia Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc; In re Latrefeers Inc; Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co and others (No 2) CA 15-Mar-2000
Possible claims against a foreign company for misfeasance, or wrongful or fraudulent trading might be sufficient to justify proceedings here to wind up a foreign registered company. A second requirement is that some person within this jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insolvency

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89570

Stacey v Player and Another: ChD 23 Feb 2001

A party was legally aided in proceedings. A third party offered to pay his costs in interlocutory proceedings. He was successful, and the losing party appealed an order to pay his costs. He succeeded. Whilst he was legally aided, his solicitors could only receive payment from the Legal Services Commission, and the fact that someone else might have paid did not allow an order against the third party. Such an order would leave the solicitors receiving payment other than from the LSC.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 23-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 64

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89479

Regina v Dudley Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Power City Stores Limited and Another: CA 1990

The defendant sought to recover the cost of employing leading counsel to defend him in the magistrates court after succeeding. The magistrates had disallowed the costs of leading counsel.
Held: The fact that the defendant could have obtained the same services at a much lower price than that average elsewhere is irrelevant. Pill LJ described the first test to be applied by the costs clerk on the taxation of costs in the magistrates court: ‘In order to fulfil the requirements of stage one he has to ask himself, first of all, whether the expenses are ones which are properly incurred by the defendant.’
Woolf LJ said that in seeking to apply the statute and the Regulations the clerk to the justices had asked himself the wrong question. He asked himself if a junior counsel or a senior solicitor could reasonably have conducted the case on behalf of the applicants, and answered that question in the affirmative. What he should have asked himself was ‘whether the applicant acted reasonably in employing leading counsel’. If the answer to that question was in the affirmative then the expenses were properly incurred for the purposes of section 16.
He continued: ‘Having regard to the nature of the case, which I have already described, it is quite impossible for it to be said that the defendants were acting improperly in instructing leading counsel.’ and ‘I would content myself by making an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the justices’ clerk, being confident that when the justices’ clerk reconsiders the matter, as he is required to do, and reassesses what are the proper expenses to be paid, he will approach the matter in the way indicated in the judgment which I have just given. In other words he will come to the conclusion in this case, which is the only conclusion which I would regard as being proper, that it was reasonable to engage leading counsel and merely confine himself to considering what fees are properly recoverable in respect of the instruction of leading counsel.’

Judges:

Pill LJ, Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1990] JP 654

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 16(6) 16(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Law Society of England and Wales, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 15-Jun-2010
Costs restriction not made under Act
The respondent had introduced rules which restricted the levels of costs which might be awarded from central funds to a successful defendant in a criminal trial who had take private representation. The amendment was made under powers in the 1985 . .
CitedRoyal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust v Acres QBD 22-Mar-2013
The defendant challenged the use by the claimant of solicitors from Central London in her claim for personal injury. She was a radiographer, and her work involved exposure to dangerous materials, though in this case it arose from use of machinery . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Magistrates

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.416820

University of Nottingham v Eyett and Another (No 2): ChD 3 Dec 1998

The Pensions’ Ombudsman having had a decision overturned on appeal and having entered appearance at the appeal was liable in costs only to the extent that his intervention had increased the costs.

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 594

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Wrongly decidedMoore’s (Wallisdown) Ltd v Pensions Ombudsman and Another; Royal and Sun Alliance Life and Pensions Ltd v Same ChD 21-Dec-2001
The applicants had successfully appealed against decisions of the Pensions Ombudsman. They sought their costs. The Ombudsman argued that the costs should be limited to the proportion by which they had in fact contributed to the need for an appeal. . .
CitedRegina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.90089

Spath Holme Ltd v Chairman of the Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee (No2); Curtis v Similar: QBD 2 Jan 1998

A Bill of costs could be presented even though counsel’s fee had not yet been agreed; an extension of time was properly granted.

Citations:

Times 02-Jan-1998

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 62

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoSpath Holme Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee CA 9-Aug-1995
The rent assessment committee had rejected market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the subject premises, because, inter alia, they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity, and thus found that the landlord had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.89445

Regina v Lands Tribunal, Ex Parte Jafton Properties Ltd: COL 31 Jul 2000

After a tribunal application, the applicant submitted his costs for taxation. After the hearing there was further correspondence about the decision, resulting in the applicant formally objecting to the taxation. He suggested that the correspondence after the award meant that taxation had not been concluded. It was held that he was out of time. The taxation award had all the elements necessary to make it final, and the President’s refusal of extension of time was not irrational or unreasonable. The reasons were succinct, but correct.

Judges:

Langley J

Citations:

Gazette 31-Aug-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 384

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 (1996 No 1022) 52

Costs, Administrative, Land

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87117

Regina v Liverpool Magistrates Court, Ex parte Abiaka: QBD 5 Mar 1999

After a bench dismissed a matter, a later bench awarded the defendant his costs. He applied for payment but was refused on basis that it was not the same bench.
Held: It need not be the same bench to dismiss the charge and to order costs. Once justices have made a defendant’s costs order, it is not for the clerk to ignore it. If he believed it wrong in law, he should raise it again with the bench or a reconstituted bench to alter the decision or refer it to a higher court.

Citations:

Times 06-May-1999, Gazette 08-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 205

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(1)

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85371

Regina v Common Professional Examination Board, Ex Parte Mealing-Mcclead: CA 19 Apr 2000

A party was required to pay money into court before pursuing an appeal. She borrowed money for this purpose but on the express condition that it should be used for this purpose only and was not to become part of her general assets. The money was paid into court, but the appeal was compromised in her favour. The judge ordered payment out to her opponent, to satisfy earlier unsatisfied costs orders. Her request for leave to appeal succeeded. The trust was as between her and the bank, and no need of others being notified arose. As trustee for the bank, she had a duty to act to recover it, and so had locus standi.

Citations:

Times 02-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 138

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Common Professional Examination Board ex parte Sally Mealing-Mcleod Admn 4-Nov-1997
The claimant challenged decisions taken as to the extension of time to allow her to pass the Common Professional Examination to become a member of the Bar. An application had some time before made for an oder under the 1981 Act. There was no taint . .
See AlsoRegina v ex parte Mealing-Mcleod CA 18-Feb-1999
Formal order acknowledging settlement in favour of the applicant. . .
See AlsoRegina v Common Professional Examination Board (ex parte Sally Mealing Mcleod) Admn 19-Apr-1999
. .
See AlsoRegina v Common Professional Examination Board ex parte Mealing-Mcleod CA 21-Apr-1999
. .
Appeal fromMcleod v Common Professional Examination Board SCCO 13-Mar-2000
. .
CitedBarclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd; etc HL 31-Oct-1968
R Ltd were in serious financial difficulties. The company’s overdraft with the appellant bank was almost twice its permitted limit. The company sought a loan of 1 million pounds from a financier, who was willing to lend the company that sum provided . .
CitedJohnson v Valks CA 23-Nov-1999
A person requiring leave to issue proceedings as a vexatious litigant, had also to obtain leave again before entering an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The entering of an appeal is either the institution of new proceedings, or an application . .
CitedBrereton v Edwards 1888
Money in the control of the Court may be the subject of execution with the leave of the Court. The Judgments Acts did not apply to money held in Court. Lord Esher MR said: ‘section 14 does not apply to money . . it applies only to Government stock, . .
CitedIn re Prior CA 1921
The court considered its equitable powers over funds it held as security. The court ordered equitable execution. . .
CitedBarclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd; etc HL 31-Oct-1968
R Ltd were in serious financial difficulties. The company’s overdraft with the appellant bank was almost twice its permitted limit. The company sought a loan of 1 million pounds from a financier, who was willing to lend the company that sum provided . .
CitedLondon County Council v Monks 1958
Danckwerts J considered the powers of the court over money paid in as security: ‘The real basis of those cases seems . . to be that where the court has the fund under its own control, as in the case of a fund standing to the credit to some account . .

Cited by:

CitedKris Motor Spares Ltd v Fox Williams Llp QBD 12-May-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the After the Event Insurance (ATE) bought by its solicitors late in the day in their claim, before then withdrawing the conditional fee agreement. The premium was over andpound;90,000.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions, Banking

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85198

Hamilton v Al-Fayed and Others (No 3): QBD 13 Jul 2001

Where a person funded another’s court action as an act of charity, it should be exceptional to order that third party to contribute to the costs of the successful opponent. Nevertheless there could be no absolute rule against such orders. There is a clear distinction between those who act in this way as pure funders, and those who funded litigation from some contractual obligation. Another relevant consideration was whether the funder had information to suggest that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success, or whether he acted as some quixotic philanthropist.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Morland

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2001, [2001] EWHC QB 389

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 4(1)

Costs, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81197

Lionel Goldstein v Ron Conley (2): CA 21 Jun 2001

A case went from the leasehold valuation tribunal, where there was no jurisdiction to award costs, to the Lands Appeal Tribunal where the Tribunal awarded costs against the applicant, and again to the High Court where the landlord sought to enforce the costs award. The tenant argued that the LAT had no power to award costs on an appeal from the LVT. It was held that the proceedings at the LAT were separate proceedings for which a full power to award costs existed, and that the High Court had full power to enforce the costs order, through its inherent powers, just as it had power to enforce a judgment of a foreign court.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 637

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80903

Ford v GKR Construction and Others: CA 22 Oct 1999

Where a party wished to put the other at risk of payment of costs by the making of an offer, it was vital that the other party should be made properly aware of any information available to decide on the offer. Under the new regime, it was not appropriate to hold back such information, and a party who did so risked losing his costs even if the payment in would otherwise meet the criteria. The Claimant recovered less damages than the amount of the payment into Court, but the Defendants were ordered to pay the whole of the Claimant’s costs, including those incurred after the date of the payment in.
Held: ‘the judge reaching his decision about costs is required to take into account all relevant aspects of the litigation.’ The order was justified in the circumstances of that case, in particular because of the late introduction of evidence by the Defendants which had the effect of reducing the amount of the judgment below that of the payment in. ‘Indeed, [the judge’s] judgment has served to underline [not ‘undermine’] the importance, rightly and increasingly, to be attached to civil litigation being conducted openly between the parties with the real issues between them efficiently and quickly identified and investigated without, as it now seems to me, any unfairness to these defendants in this case.’ (Woolf MR) ‘I also draw attention to the fact that the rules refer to the power of the court to make other orders and make it clear that the normal cost consequences of failing to beat the sum paid in does not apply when it is unjust that it should do so. If a party has not enabled another party to properly assess whether or not to make an offer, or whether or not to accept an offer which is made, because of non-disclosure to the other party of material matters, or if a party comes to a decision which is different from that which would have been reached if there had been proper disclosure, that is a material matter for the court to take into account in considering what orders it should make.’ Judge LJ: ‘Civil litigation is now developing into a system designed to enable the parties involved to know where they stand in reality at the earliest possible stage, and at the lowest practicable cost, so that they …. may make informed decisions about their prospects and the sensible conduct of their cases. Among other factors the judge exercising his discretion about costs should consider is whether one side or the other has, or has not, conducted litigation with those principles in mind.’

Judges:

Judge LJ, Woolf MR

Citations:

Times 05-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 All ER 802, [1999] EWCA Civ 3030

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAmber v Stacey CA 15-Nov-2000
The defendant challenged an order that he should pay the plaintiff’s costs, having made an offer in correspondence which was not accepted.
Held: The claimant had exaggerated his claim, but the defendant’s offer had been inadequate. The judge’s . .
CitedDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others ChD 23-Jan-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80630

Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellshaft Mbh v Koshy and Others: CA 20 Feb 2001

The effect of revocation of a party’s emergency civil legal aid certificate was that he was to be deemed never to have been an assisted person. Accordingly where two costs orders had been made in interlocutory proceedings, and the defendant had been protected from an order for costs because of the legal aid certificate, it was open to a judge to revisit those costs orders after revocation and to consider substituting orders which could not have been made when he was legally aided. The provisions in this case survived some of the repeals under the new legislation.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1228

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1988, Access to Justice Act 1999, Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNewgate Stud Company, Newgate Stud Farm Llc v Penfold, Penfold Bloodstock Limited ChD 21-Dec-2004
The claimants sought damages from the defendant. He had been employed to manage their horse-racing activities, and it was alleged that he had made secret profits. The defendant denied any dishonesty, saying all matters were known to the deceased . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79885

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 that fraud might be involved. To do so would be for the court to act as an appellate capacity on a matter it had decided itself: ‘when the court makes an order, only in the most exceptional circumstances such as those involving fraud or the slip rule, could the court revisit the order even where it is for costs. The court cannot act as an appellate court in respect of its own orders. It is not even as if the circumstances in which I am asked to revisit the order were not contemplated at the time when the order for costs was made.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Gazette 11-Aug-1999, Times 28-Sep-1999, [1999] EWHC 834 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See alsoCommissioners 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 alsoCommissioners 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 . .

Cited by:

See alsoCustoms and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No.4) ChD 18-Oct-1999
. .
See AlsoCommissioners 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 . .
CitedCS v ACS and Another FD 16-Apr-2015
Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires
W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79364

Burrows v Vauxhall Motors Ltd; Mongiardi v IBBC Vehicles Ltd: CA 19 Nov 1997

After acceptance of money paid into court in proceedings issued unnecessarily quickly, the taxing officer alone has the power to disallow costs.
Powers of the County Court to deal with costs unnecessarily incurred as the result of the premature issue of proceedings in personal injury actions where liability was not in issue.

Judges:

Lord Woolf

Citations:

Gazette 10-Dec-1997, Times 17-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2756

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 Order 11 r 3(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRidehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78763

Bunzl v Martin Bunzl International Ltd and Others: ChD 3 Aug 2000

Security for costs had been ordered against a Swiss resident claimant. Although Switzerland is not in the EU or in the EEA and therefore rules against discrimination against nationals of member states did not apply, Switzerland was still a signatory to the Brussels and Lugano Conventions for enforcement of judgments. The discretion to require security for costs was slightly wider a regards a Swiss national, but the court should still general follow the rule in Fitzgerald. Orders for security for costs against nationals of other EU member states were discriminatory.

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2000, Gazette 03-Aug-2000

European, Costs, International

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78741

Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth: QBD 10 May 2000

The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The discretion given to magistrates to award such costs as it feels are just and reasonable does not mean that costs should always and normally follow the event. An authority with a duty to make decisions which suffered a successful challenge to that decision, but where the fault in the decision fell short of being unreasonable, dishonest, or improper, should not normally be ordered to pay the costs. The financial effect on the parties should be assessed, but such challenges are part of the expense of running a business. Section 64 was concerned with both liability for costs and their amount. The only statutory restriction on the power of the magistrates was that they could not make an order for costs against a successful party.
Bingham CJ said: ‘The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith.’
Later he continued ‘It seems to me that the justices in this case misdirected themselves, first, in relying on a principle that costs should follow the event, that misdirection being compounded by their view that the reference in section 64 to the order being just and reasonable applied to quantum only. On the other hand, in my judgment the submissions made by Mr Blair-Gould on behalf of the local authority go too far the other way since to give effect to the principle for which he contends would deprive the justices of any discretion to view the case in the round which is in my judgment what section 64 intends.
I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised is three propositions:
1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates’ court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them.
2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection.
3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour; and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged.’

Judges:

Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000, (2000) COD 338, (2000) 164 JP 485

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1), Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 62(1)(b)

Citing:

CitedRegina v Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, ex parte Chief Constable Dyfed Powys Police QBD 9-Nov-1998
The Chief Constable, on good grounds, objected to the transfer of a justices’ on-licence to a Mrs W. Mrs W appealed and the Chief Constable, having objected to the transfer, became a respondent. On the appeal Mrs W contended that, since the conduct . .
CitedRegina v Totnes Licensing Justices, ex parte Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall QBD 28-May-1990
The court considered the award of costs in a licensing case. Roch J said: ‘There can be no doubt that in civil proceedings between litigants, be it in the High Court or county court, the principle is that costs follow the event. The winning party . .
CitedChief Constable of Derbyshire v Goodman and Newton Admn 2-Apr-1998
Firearms licences were granted to the two respondents, but then revoked by the Chief Constable. They appealed to the Crown Court and their appeal was allowed. The judge, however, ordered the Chief Constable to pay the costs of the two respondents, . .

Cited by:

CitedBaxendale-Walker v The Law Society Admn 30-Mar-2006
The solicitor appealed being struck off. He had given a character reference in circumstances where he did not have justification for the assessment.
Held: ‘The appellant knew that Barclays Bank trusted him to provide a truthful reference. . .
CitedCambridge City Council v Alex Nestling Ltd QBD 17-May-2006
The council appealed an award of costs against it. The respondent had appealed against a refusal by the council to vary a premises licence for a public house with partial success, and the magistrates had awarded the respondent half its costs.
CitedMastercard UK Members Forum Ltd Mastercard International Inc CAT 28-Jul-2006
. .
CitedPerinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Local Government, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78542

Lewis v Averay (No 2): CA 1973

The defendant had been unable to obtain legal aid, and resorted to the Automobile Association which indemnified him for his costs of his successful appeal. The respondent was legally aided on the appeal and the appellant sought an order for his costs against the Law Society. The Law Society could only be liable in respect of costs which had been ‘incurred’ by the unassisted litigant. The Law Society argued that the costs had been incurred by the AA and not by the litigant.
Held: Despite it being stated by the AA’s solicitors that Mr Averay had been told that he would be indemnified in all respects by the AA so that no part of the costs of the appeal had or would have fallen on him, he was the party to the appeal, the person responsible for costs, and, if the appeal had failed, the person who would have been ordered to pay costs, and that if those costs had not been paid his goods would have been liable to execution rather than those of the AA.
Lord Denning MR found that the legal fees were incurred by Averay, said: ‘[Mr Hames] suggests that in this case the costs were not incurred by Mr Averay, but were incurred by the Automobile Association; because the Automobile Association undertook the appeal and instructed their solicitors and paid them. I cannot accept this suggestion. It is clear that Mr Averay was in law the party to the appeal. He was the person responsible for the costs. If the appeal had failed, he would be the person ordered to pay the costs. If the costs had not been paid, execution would be levied against him and not against the Automobile Association. The truth is that the costs were incurred by Mr Averay, but the Automobile Association indemnify him against the costs.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 510

Citing:

See AlsoLewis v Averay CA 22-Jul-1971
A private seller had parted with his car in return for a worthless cheque to a rogue who persuaded him that he was the well-known actor who played Robin Hood on television, and who sold it on to the defendant.
Held: ‘When two parties have come . .

Cited by:

CitedRadford 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

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566838

Borneman v Wilson: CA 1884

The Wilsons, father and son, had acted as commercial agents of one Borneman. He began an action against them in the Chancery Division for an account of their dealings with his goods and obtained interlocutory relief on motion including an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. The Wilsons served a notice of appeal, but shortly afterwards a bankruptcy order was made against them. On 7 October 1884, a trustee in bankruptcy was appointed. On 18 October, the trustee was substituted as a defendant, apparently ex parte on the application of Borneman. On 31 October, he gave notice abandoning the appeal. He then entered an appearance in the substantive proceedings and called for a statement of claim. Borneman applied for an order against the trustee requiring him to pay the costs of the appeal which he had incurred before receipt of the notice of abandonment.
Held: The order was made. notwithstanding the trustee’s prompt and express abandonment of the appeal, by appearing and calling for a statement of claim in the Chancery proceedings he had adopted the action, and that meant the entire action including the appeal.
Bowen LJ said that the trustee: ‘cannot adopt part of the action and leave out the rest.’

Judges:

Bowen and Fry LJJ

Citations:

(1884) 28 Ch D 53

Cited by:

AdoptedSchool Board for London v Wall Brothers CA 1891
. .
CitedTrustee of Property of Vickery (a Bankrupt) v Modern Security Systems Limited CA 15-Oct-1997
A trustee in bankruptcy will be treated as the party if he has in fact adopted the proceedings by conducting the litigation, even if there has been no formal substitution . .
CitedBPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566481

School Board for London v Wall Brothers: CA 1891

Judges:

Lord Esher MR and Lopes and Kay LJJ

Citations:

(1891) 8 Morr 202

Citing:

AdoptedBorneman v Wilson CA 1884
The Wilsons, father and son, had acted as commercial agents of one Borneman. He began an action against them in the Chancery Division for an account of their dealings with his goods and obtained interlocutory relief on motion including an injunction . .

Cited by:

CitedBPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insolvency

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566482

In re Bluck, Ex parte Bluck: 1887

The discretionary character of a costs order meant that it was not even a contingent liability until the order had actually been made

Citations:

(1887) 57 LT 419

Cited by:

CitedIn re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
CitedBPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.537712

In re A Debtor (No 68 of 1911): 1911

Citations:

[1911] 2 KB 652

Cited by:

CitedIn re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
CitedBPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.537713

In re Pitchford: 11 Jan 1924

Citations:

[1924] 2 Ch 260

Cited by:

CitedIn re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
CitedGeneral Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza EAT 10-Oct-2014
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The Employment Tribunal, by a majority, found that the Respondent was in breach of a duty to make . .
CitedBPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.537714

Case XXII 10 Jac 10 Co 115 B, 117 B, Pitfold’s Case Damages, Count: 1220

In trespass the plaintiff declares to 40l damages ; upon not guilty pleaded by the defendant, a verdict gives 49l damages with costs of suit to the plaintiff ; the plaintiff releases 9l. Of the damages, and has judgment for the 40l. damages, with the costs. Damages are for the wrong done before the writ purchased. Costs are pro expensis litis.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 57, (1220-1623) Jenk 288, (1220) 145 ER 208 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.460969

The Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner: CA 23 Nov 2010

A losing candidate at a local election alleged corrupt and illegal practices relating to the entry of non-existent people on the electoral roll and using postal votes. The Election Commissioner found this proved and the election void, and awarded costs against him. He was unable to meet the sum awarded and became bankrupt. The candidate who had lost sought payment from the defrauding candidate’s party (against whom no offence had been found). The Party now disputed the jurisdiction of and its use by the Commissioner to join them. Party funds had insured the fund for the defence in Court. It was argued that the Commissioner was functus officio, and had no jurisdiction to take matters further.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Smith, Leveson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1332, [2011] PTSR 416

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Cripps; Ex parte Muldoon CA 1984
The Elections Commissioner had sought, some time after his order on a petition, to clarify the order from costs.
Held: The Commissioner, and in turn Keith J, had been wrong to consider themselves not bound by Muldoon. What Mr Cripps (the . .
CitedAiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
Appeal fromThe Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner and Others Admn 19-Feb-2010
A local election result had been set aside for fraud in the winning Conservative candidate. The Commissioner made an order for costs against his party which was now challenged for lack of jurisdiction the Commissioner being functus officio, and the . .
CitedUllah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy CA 12-Dec-2002
The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedTaunton Election Petition, In re; Marshall v James CCP 29-May-1874
A petition against the return of the member for Taunton was filed in November 1873. The trial commenced on the 12th of January, 1874, and on the morning of the 26th, at about 10.30, the judge gave judgment declaring the respondent to have been duly . .
CitedRegina v Cripps; Ex parte Muldoon QBD 1983
The election commissioner, Mr Anthony Cripps QC, had purported to explain many months later what he had meant in an order for costs which he had made when handing down his judgment on an election petition. It was argued that he had had the power to . .
CitedVakauta v Kelly 1989
(High Court of Australia) The majority held that the first instance judge fell on the wrong side of ‘an ill-defined line beyond which the expression by a trial judge of preconceived views about the reliability of particular medical witnesses could . .
CitedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.426466

Weldon v Vesey: 1682

Whether a sheriff, or, andc. shall have 12d. in the pound for the first 1001. and 6d. for the rest upon an execution.

Citations:

[1682] EngR 426, (1682) Pop 173, (1682) 79 ER 1269

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.401523

Attwood v Small: 12 Dec 1827

Where a great number of exceptions were taken to an answer, and shortly before the argument the defendant submitted to answer them, in consequence of which, it was urged, that the answer was clearly evasive, and that the ordinary costs were greatly inadequate; yet the Court refused to give extra costs but reserved the consideration of them, until the hearing of the cause.

Citations:

[1827] EngR 853, (1827) 2 Y and J 72, (1827) 148 ER 837 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoAttwood v Small And Others 9-Aug-1827
An agreement, contained by itself less than 1080 words, but there was in it a stipulation that a clause in a previous agreement, which was duly stamped, should be taken as part of the new agreement.
Held: That although with the clause referred . .
See AlsoAttwood v Small And Others 8-Nov-1827
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoSmall And Others v Attwood And Others 3-May-1828
Amendment of pleadings . .
See AlsoSmall And Others v Attwood And Others 1-Nov-1832
Where a contract is entered into for the purchase of an estate by certain persons in their own names, but in fact on their own account, and also as agents for other parties, a bill to rescind the contract may be filed in the names of the agents and . .
See AlsoAttwood v Small and Others HL 1-Mar-1838
The plaintiffs had bought land including iron mines from the defendants. They sought and were given explicit re-assurances about the mine’s capacity, but these proved false after the plaintiffs had begun to work the mine themselves.
Held: . .
See AlsoAttwood v Small etc 22-Mar-1838
. .
See AlsoAttwood v Small 1840
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.324607

Lewis v Samuel: 17 Apr 1846

Plaintiff, an attorney, undertook a prosecution for perjury on defendant’s behalf, and agreed not to charge him full costs, except money out of pocket. He disbursed 105 pounds towards carrying on the proceedings, but, by negligence, preferred a defective indictment, and, in consequence, the prosecution failed. Held that he could not recover against defendant for the disbursements. Defendant, in the course of the proceedings, advanced plaintiff 100 1. for carrying them on ; and he applied it accordingly. Held, that, in an action by plaintiff for professional charges and disbursements, defendant could not set off’ the 100 pounds. as money received by plaintiff to his use.

Citations:

[1846] EngR 543, (1846) 8 QB 685, (1846) 115 ER 1031

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.302438

Dickens v Dickens: 9 Mar 1859

Wife’s Costs. – Wife’s Petition. – Taxed Costs during Suit – Practice – On taxation of wife’s costs in a petition for judicial separation pending suit, the registrar disallowed all costs incurred before actual proceedings taken against the husband, and various items charged for attendance on the wife’s father in connection with her case. On cause shewn against a rule nisi for a review of taxation :- The Court affirmed the registrar’s taxation as being in accordance with the practice of both the common law and ecclesiastical courts.

Citations:

[1859] EngR 391, (1859) 2 Sw and Tr 103, (1859) 164 ER 931

Links:

Commonlii

Costs, Family

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.287743

Dooly v The Great Northern Railway Company: 27 Jan 1860

By reason of stat. 11 Hen. 7, c. 12, and Reg. Gen. Hil. 1853, r. 121, where a plaintiff sues in forma pauperis, arid obtains a verdict arid the Judge’s certificate for costs, whatever be the amount recovered, nothing is to be allowed on taxation of costs in respect of fees to the plaintiffs counsel, or by way of remuneration for the services of the plaintiff’s attorney. In a case where the Court bad previously so held, the Court now refused an application by the plaintiff for a rule to enter a suggestion on the roll to deprive the plaintiff of costs; the object of the application being that error might be brought on the former decision, and the Court holding that error could riot be brought.

Citations:

[1860] EngR 393, (1860) 2 El and El 576, (1860) 121 ER 217

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.285232

Clark v Malpas: 13 Jan 1863

The cost of bridging up witnesses for cross-examination in Court allowed, in a taxation between party and party, although they had not been actually cross-examined. Shorthand writer’s notes of the Cross-examination of witnesses in Court allowed, but costs of his notes of the judgment disallowed, on a taxation between party arid party.

Citations:

[1863] EngR 107, (1862-1863) 31 Beav 554, (1863) 54 ER 1253

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoClark v Malpas 25-Apr-1862
The court found a contract to be an unconscionable bargain where a poor and illiterate man was induced to enter into a transaction of an unusual nature, without proper independent advice, and in great haste; and the resulting transaction has been, . .
See AlsoClark v Malpas 2-Jul-1862
A purchase from an illiterate poor man, who was ill at the time, set aside, the price being inadequate, the vendor having no professorial advice, and the transaction being completed in great haste and on terms unduly disadvantageous to him. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.282762

Anderson v Hyde and Others: CANI 2 May 1996

The defendant company was wound up after the receiver had been appointed and the liquidator declined to take over the defence to the action. The judge had refused an application for a third party costs order against the receivers.
Held: Had the defence been taken over by the liquidator the costs of the claimant would have ranked in priority to the claims of ordinary unsecured creditors, and it would not be just and equitable for a receiver to be able to defend the action without any liability for costs whatever the outcome. A receiver of a company taking over the defence of a case is liable in costs as a party, but is entitled to an indemnity.

Citations:

Times 02-May-1996, [1996] 2 BCLC 144

Cited by:

CitedDolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others CA 17-May-2007
The owner had agreed to sell a long lease of an apartment to the defendant. Part of the price was to be by way of set off of an existing debt, but ths was not set out in the contract. The claimant bought the land and the benfit of the contract from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Northern Ireland, Costs

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77787

Cambridge City Council v Alex Nestling Ltd: QBD 17 May 2006

The council appealed an award of costs against it. The respondent had appealed against a refusal by the council to vary a premises licence for a public house with partial success, and the magistrates had awarded the respondent half its costs.
Held: The appellant had not acted unlawfully, but had acted conscientously and properly. The magistrates had merely reached a different conclusion. The otherwise normal rule that costs follow the event did not apply in such cases.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Toulson J

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2006

Statutes:

Licensing Act 2003 181

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth QBD 10-May-2000
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244195

Okotcha v Voest Alpine Intertrading GmbH: CA 1993

When deciding whether to order security for costs, the possibility or probability that the plaintiff company will be deterred from pursuing its claim is not the sole deciding factor.

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1993] BCLC 474

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKeary 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225882

Rediffusion v Singer Link: CA 1993

In Patent infringement proceedings it may be proper for a court to assess costs on an issue by issue basis because of the ‘large number of issues and the very extensive costs that can be incurred.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ

Citations:

[1993] FSR 369

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSmithkline Beecham Plc and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others CA 16-Dec-2004
Following its earlier main judgment in the case, the court made use of the CPR to award costs on an appeal. The overall result had been that the patent was found to be valid but not infringed. There had been huge costs. Smithkline sought costs on an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.222557

Regina v Shrewsbury Coroner’s Court ex parte British Parachute Association: QBD 21 Sep 1987

Coroners are forbidden by the rules to make recommendations to a jury as to their verdict. Despite the fact that the coroner was represented at the appeal, the court refused to make any order for costs against the coroner. This was not a case where they could express strong disapproval of the coroner, there being no special circumstances .

Judges:

Lloyd LJ and Mann J

Citations:

(1987) 152 JPR 123, Times 21-Sep-1987

Statutes:

Coroners Rules 1984 (1984 No 552) 36(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.194541

UCB Bank Plc v Dundas and Wilson: SCS 1990

It would not be competent for the Court of Session to restrict the pursuers’ entitlement to a fraction or percentage of the sums brought out as being payable in terms of the accounts, after they had been taxed by the Auditor.

Citations:

1990 1 SLT 90

Cited by:

CitedFree and others v British Steel Plc and Another SCS 18-Jul-2003
(Outer House) The pursuer had sought damages from the defender, but failed to submit the claim for expenses. The defenders said they were prejudiced by the delay.
Held: ‘Comparing the prejudice the pursuers would suffer, were the motion to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184713

Chamberlain v Boodle and King: 1982

A second solicitor’s bill was not susceptible to taxation because it related to what was in effect one continuous matter for which a bill had already been taxed.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1982] 3 All ER 188

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAaron v Okoye CA 15-Jan-1998
The plaintiff solicitor had acted for the respondent barrister in legal proceedings. The respondent was unhappy with work done on her behalf by counsel instructed by the plaintiff, and declined to pay. The solicitor taxed his bill excluding . .
CitedAaron v Okoye CA 19-Mar-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183327

British Cash and Parcel Conveyors Ltd v Lamson Store Service Co Ltd: 1908

The court explained the law underlying the civil and criminal penalties for the maintenance of an action by third parties: ‘It is directed against wanton and officious intermeddling with the disputes of others in which the [maintainer] has no interest whatever, and where the assistance he renders to one or the other party is without justification or excuse.’

Judges:

Fletcher-Moulton LJ

Citations:

[1908] 1 KB 1006

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Factortame Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (No 8) CA 3-Jul-2002
A firm of accountants had agreed to provide their services as experts in a case on the basis that they would be paid by taking part of any damages awarded. The respondent claimed that such an agreement was champertous and unlawful.
Held: The . .
CitedGiles v Thompson, Devlin v Baslington (Conjoined Appeals) HL 1-Jun-1993
Car hire companies who pursued actions in motorists’ names to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle after an accident, from negligent drivers, were not acting in a champertous and unlawful manner. Lord Mustill said: ‘there exists in . .
CitedSibthorpe and Morris v London Borough of Southwark CA 25-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the extent to which the ancient rule against champerty prevents a solicitor agreeing to indemnify his claimant client against any liability for costs which she may incur against the defendant in the litigation in which the . .
CitedSimpson v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust CA 12-Oct-2011
The court was asked whether it was possible to assign as a chose in action a cause of action in tort for damages for personal injury, and if so under what circumstances it was possible.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant did not have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.181095

B Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care: EAT 9 Mar 2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/125/97

Citing:

CitedAiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
See AlsoHedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care EAT 26-Jun-1998
. .
See AlsoHedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care CA 17-Feb-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.171769

Thomas v Bunn: HL 1991

From its enactment it was accepted that s 17 applied to orders for costs to be taxed – even though before taxation was completed there was no sum for which execution could be levied – and did so from the date of the order (the incipitur rule), not the date of the certificate of taxation (the allocatur rule), although the latter rule had for a while prevailed in Chancery.
Lord Ackner said: ‘If the words used in this section are considered in isolation, the problem would not appear to be a difficult one. It is accepted there cannot be a judgment debt until there is a judgment for a quantified sum, i.e. a final as contrasted with an interlocutory judgment. Such a final judgment is to carry interest from the time of entering up ‘the judgment’, i.e. the judgment which creates the judgment debt, i.e. the final judgment. This is made doubly clear by the provision that the interest shall run ‘until the same shall be satisfied’. Until there is a quantified sum which the judgment debtor is obliged by the terms of the judgment to pay, there is no judgment which he is able to satisfy. The final provision in the section that ‘such interest may be levied under a writ of execution on such judgment’ must refer to the judgment which has created the judgment debt. That is the final judgment.’ and . .
‘The wording of section 17 clearly envisages a single judgment which constitutes the ‘judgment debt’. This ‘judgment debt’ can only arise where the judgment itself quantifies the sum which the judgment debtor owes to his judgment creditor. The language of the section does not envisage an interlocutory judgment, but only a final judgment.’

Judges:

Lord Ackner

Citations:

[1991] 1 AC 362, [1991] 2 WLR 27, [1991] 1 All ER 193

Statutes:

Judgments Act 1838 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHunt v R M Douglas (Roofing) Ltd HL 1990
The plaintiff had an order ‘That the Defendants do pay to the Plaintiff his costs of this action . . to be taxed . . failing agreement’ and the House was asked as to the time from when he was entitled to interest.
Held: A litigant who has been . .

Cited by:

CitedInvolnert Management Inc v Aprilgrange Limited and Others ComC 8-Oct-2015
Date from which interest was to run on principal damages award. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.553255

A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Payment of Legal Fees): FD 2001

The court made an order to provide that the monies paid by way of maintenance pending suit in respect of any matter can be brought into account by the judge making the order in the ancillary relief proceedings.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 605

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWyatt v Vince SC 11-Mar-2015
Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds
The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied . .
CitedCurrey v Currey CA 18-Oct-2006
Where one party in an ancillary relief claim was not entitled to legal aid, but showed a need for legal representation which he or she could not afford, the court could make an order requiring the other party to make a costs allowance. The nature of . .
CitedVince v Wyatt CA 8-May-2013
The parties had divorced some twenty years previously, but apparently without ancillary relief orders, the parties at the time being relatively poor. H was now wealthy and W applied for lump sum provision. H replied that there was no no evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.544254

In re Wenborn and Co: 1905

Buckley J held: ‘When the voluntary liquidator, or the liquidator in a compulsory winding up, comes to the Court for leave to bring or defend an action by or against the company, and obtains this leave, the judge in effect pledges the assets of the company for the costs of the action which he authorizes the liquidator to bring or adopt or defend.’ and ‘When there is a winding-up of a company – whether the liquidation be compulsory or voluntary – all claims of creditors ought prima facie to be dealt with in the winding-up in accordance with the rules applicable to the distribution of the assets, and that costs ought also to be dealt with in like manner; but that if an action is pending to which the company is a party, then, if the company which is in liquidation acting by its liquidator determines to prosecute or defend the proceedings for the estate, the estate must be treated as the party litigant, and must in case of failure pay the costs in full. In other words, the other creditors, for whose benefit the action is defended, must in such case bear the costs.’

Judges:

Buckley J

Citations:

[1905] 1 Ch 413

Cited by:

CitedIn re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insolvency

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.537947

In Re Longbotham and Sons: CA 1904

The borrower had agreed to pay the lender’s solicitors bill, but challenged it saying that it included elements for personal work.
Held: The personal items were excluded. Costs which are outside the scope of the third party’s liability ‘would not have to be taxed or considered’. In other words it is no part of the assessment that such costs are taxed or considered. Romer LJ said: ‘When a third party taxes a bill under s. 38 of the Act of 1843, it is clear, both from the wording of the section itself and the authorities, that the taxation must be on the footing of a taxation between the solicitor and the client. But the third party is not for all purposes in connection with the taxation to be treated as if he were himself the client. For instance, when the client has paid the bill, and might not be able to shew special circumstances sufficient to entitle him to have the bill taxed, it does not follow of necessity that the third party is thereby precluded from obtaining taxation.’
A third party asked to pay a solicitors bill is entitled to have extraneous matters excluded. Romer LJ said: ‘Again, the solicitor may have acted for the client in more than one completed matter, and the client may not be entitled as against the solicitor to obtain delivery of a bill and taxation, except on the footing of having all the matters included and taxed. But if the third party be only interested in and liable to pay the costs of one matter, it is clear in my opinion, as a matter of principle, that under s. 38 he can obtain taxation of the bill so far as concerns that one matter only, and on the footing of being liable to pay only the taxed costs of that matter. And that principle really decides this case, and shews that the appeal should fail. For in the present case the third party is a mortgagor, and he is only interested in the relations between the solicitor and his client so far as they concern the position of the client strictly in his character of mortgagee. The mortgagor, therefore, is entitled under s. 38 to have taxation of the solicitors’ bill limited to the items of costs incurred by the client strictly in his position of mortgagee.’
Romer LJ said: ‘It may well be that the client, as between himself and the solicitor, is liable for costs incurred in relation to the mortgaged property with which the mortgagor is not concerned, and for which the mortgagor is not liable. Those will be costs incurred by the mortgagee in his personal capacity so far as concerns the mortgagor, and not costs incurred by him in the capacity of mortgagee strictly and properly considered, and accordingly would not have to be taxed or considered by the taxing master in a taxation by the mortgagor as third party.’

Judges:

Romer LJ

Citations:

[1904] 2 Ch 152

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1843 38

Cited by:

CitedTim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump Llp ChD 17-Nov-2010
The company borrowed money from a bank, who instructed the defendants to act in the loan. On recovering the loan, the borrowers challenged the amounts charged by the solicitors. The court was asked what were the powers for a third party paying a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.426439

Re Cohen and Cohen: CA 1905

Mrs Cotton sued Mr Edwardes for breach of contract; and he claimed against her as to the ownership of a song. Mrs Cotton authorised her solicitors to incur liabilities for unusual expenses, including the employment of leading and junior counsel to settle the statement of claim and to advise on evidence. Before giving instructions for taking these steps she had been advised by the solicitors that the extra costs would have to be paid by herself; and would not be allowed against her opponent even if she were successful in the litigation. Mr Edwardes and Mrs Cotton subsequently settled the actions on terms that Mr Edwardes paid Mrs Cotton’s costs ‘as between solicitor and client relating to the matters in dispute in the said two actions, such costs to be agreed or taxed.’ The Master said that he had taxed the bill item by item and had decided that unusual charges and luxuries were to be borne by the client (Mrs Cotton) rather than by Mr Edwardes. He therefore disallowed the special fees paid to leading counsel. She appealed.
Held: The appeal failed.
Vaughan Williams LJ said that the agreement should be construed as limited to costs that were reasonable proper and necessary in the actions and that by requiring assessment of the bill Mr Edwardes had not enlarged his liability under the agreement.
Romer LJ said: ‘I think he has contracted to pay solicitor and client costs to be taxed in the ordinary way without regard to any special arrangement which may have extended the client’s ordinary liability . . To hold otherwise would be to prevent a third party from obtaining the benefit of s. 38. Either he would have to forego taxation, or if he obtained it would find himself liable to pay sums which could not be anticipated by him, and for which as third party he was not liable.’ Applying this principle, he held that Mr Edwardes was not liable to pay the costs of instructing leading counsel. As he put it: ‘it is clear that the items disallowed by the taxing master were items for which Mr Edwardes was not liable.’

Judges:

Vaughan Williams, Stirling, Romer LLJ

Citations:

[1905] 2 Ch 137

Cited by:

CitedTim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump Llp ChD 17-Nov-2010
The company borrowed money from a bank, who instructed the defendants to act in the loan. On recovering the loan, the borrowers challenged the amounts charged by the solicitors. The court was asked what were the powers for a third party paying a . .
CitedTim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump Llp ChD 17-Nov-2010
The company borrowed money from a bank, who instructed the defendants to act in the loan. On recovering the loan, the borrowers challenged the amounts charged by the solicitors. The court was asked what were the powers for a third party paying a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.426442

Balchin v South Western Magistrates’ Court: Admn 2008

The successful defendant had been refused the costs of paying his counsel.
Held: The assessor was wrong in asking himself whether the employment of counsel was necessary; that was the wrong test. The only issue was whether it was reasonable.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3037 (Admin)

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16

Cited by:

CitedThe Law Society of England and Wales, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 15-Jun-2010
Costs restriction not made under Act
The respondent had introduced rules which restricted the levels of costs which might be awarded from central funds to a successful defendant in a criminal trial who had take private representation. The amendment was made under powers in the 1985 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.416818

Harris v Hamlyn: 12 Jun 1849

Where the solicitor to the Suitors’ Fund has been appointed to act, and acts as guardian for infant defendants in a foreclosure suit, at the request of the Plaintiff, under the 28th Order of October 1842, the Court upon making a decee of foreclosure will direct the Plaintiff to pay the guardian’s costs, and to add them to his own, even where tbe security is inadequate.

Citations:

[1849] EngR 725 (A), (1849) 3 De G and Sm 470

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.299030

Money v Money: 28 Nov 1853

Arches Court of Canterbury -In a matrimonial suit, the husband retained one counsel only, and the wife’s proctor, conceiving she could not claim the privilege of two, also retained one only, but for the hearing was induced to retain a second The costs thereof being allowed upon taxation, the proctor for the husband objected to the Registrar’s report.
Held that the ordinary. practice of the Court was to have two counsel on each side; that a wife was primai facie therefore entitled thereto, arid that the special circumstances of the present case dld not afford sufficiient ground for exception.

Citations:

[1853] EngR 1040, (1853) 1 Sp Ecc and Ad 117, (1853) 164 ER 68

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Ecclesiastical, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.295026

Thompson v Hudson: 3 Nov 1864

A judgment creditor, whose debt had been satisfied but who had not entered satisfaction on the rolls, was made a Defendant to a foreclosure suit. He disclaimed. Held, that he was not entitled to his costs, in consequence of his negligence in not entering up satisfaction of his judgment,

Judges:

Sir John Romilly MR

Citations:

[1864] EngR 699 (A), (1864) 34 Beav 107

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.282413

Regina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Parte Association of Darlington Taxi Owners and Darlington Owner Drivers Association (No 2): 1995

The court made an order for costs against the members of the Association on rejection of its request for permission to bring judicial review proceeds, even though he had found that the Association was not a legal person capable of bringing such proceedings. Auld J said: ‘The fact that I have found on the application to set aside that the Associations were not legal persons and that, therefore, the proceedings had to be set aside because they were not properly constituted, does not render all that went before a nullity or deprive them of the character of ‘proceedings’ for the purpose of the RSC. .’

Judges:

Auld J

Citations:

[1995] COD 128

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Parte Association of Darlington Taxi Owners and Darlington Owner Drivers Association QBD 13-Jan-1994
The court should distinguish the concepts of locus standi and capacity when considering applications for judicial review. An unincorporated association is not a legal person and may not seek Judicial Review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.276212

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (2): QBD 22 Jun 1993

The introduction of a Standard Fees Criminal Legal Aid regime did not require prior consultation with the Law Society. The rules had been imposed in accordance with the words of the enabling statute.

Citations:

Independent 22-Jun-1993, Times 25-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1988 34

Judicial Review, Costs, Legal Aid, Legal Professions

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.163155

Sony Music Entertainment Inc and another v Prestige Records Ltd and another: ChD 17 Feb 2000

On a case management hearing, the defendants made admissions on which judgment was entered. The master reserved but later awarded costs. The defendants appealed against the costs order saying that the claimants had proceeded unnecessarily aggressively and had failed to disclose evidence in a timely way. The appeal took effect as a rehearing. Intellectual property cases should be subject to the same overriding objectives as in other cases. In this case the order was correct. An appeal to a High Court judge against an order for costs, was a rehearing, and such a judge was free to exercise his discretion accordingly. Where however the issue related to something specifically within the knowledge of the first instance judge such as the proportionality of the costs to the matter in cause this was to be disturbed only rarely. That the award was made on what was essentially a case management conference should not make a difference of principle.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Feb-2000, Times 02-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89399

Nationwide Building Society v Various Solicitors: ChD 20 Jul 1999

The case draws a distinction in group and consolidated actions between costs incurred on the general points which have been common to the parties and which brought the actions together and costs incurred in dealing with matters specific to the separate particular matters which had been brought together.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Sep-1999, [1999] 20 July Unreported

Cited by:

CitedPepper (UK) Ltd (T/A Engage Credit) v Fox (P/A Barry Fox, Solicitors) ChNI 14-Jan-2016
Application by Pepper (UK) Ltd t/a Engage Credit against Emma Jane Fox practising as Barry Fox, Solicitors for the delivery up of all papers, documents and title deeds in the possession and custody of the Solicitors and belonging to the plaintiff . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.84231

Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy and Others: ChD 13 Jan 2000

Once a legal aid certificate is revoked the party is deemed by statute never to have had the benefit of a legal aid certificate. The rules relating to assessment of costs which applied when a party had legal aid did not therefore apply. An order however which has once been made cannot be varied subsequently by reference to those rules, even if the order was made in the light of them.

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2000, Gazette 13-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 130, Civil Procedure Rules Part 3.1(7)

Legal Aid, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79884

D’Abo v Paget and Others (No 2): ChD 10 Aug 2000

Where a beneficiary having brought successful action against the trust fund, the rule in In re Buckton should still apply, but where the trustees could have brought the same action themselves, and had been ready and willing to do so, the beneficiary should not be awarded costs out of the trust fund. Under the new procedure, the court should take a more robust attitude to such claims. In effect the sole reason for the claimant’s participation was to make a claim for costs if the trustees failed.

Citations:

Gazette 05-Oct-2000, Times 10-Aug-2000

Trusts, Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79774

Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others: HL 25 May 1995

There had been an application in 1986 for planning permission for a shopping centre in Trafford. There were two public enquiries, followed, as public policy changed by further representations. The plaintiff complained that the eventual decision letter was defective in failing to deal with issues of urban regeneration, and with reservation of areas for industrial use.
Held: The Secretary of State had to state his reasons ‘in sufficient detail to enable the reader to know what conclusion he had reached on the principal important controversial issues. To require him to refer to every material consideration, however insignificant, and to deal with every argument, however peripheral would be to impose and unjustifiable burden.’ In this case, though the decision letter was open to criticism, it had achieved the necessary standard and stood.
Lord Lloyd said: ‘In all questions to do with costs, the fundamental rule is that there are no rules. Costs are always in the discretion of the court, and a practice, however widespread and longstanding, must never be allowed to harden into a rule.’

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chievley, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Steyn

Citations:

Times 25-May-1995, Ind Summary 10-Jul-1995, (1995) 71 P and CR 309, (1995) 1 WLR 1176

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoBolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others No 2 HL 17-Jul-1995
The applicants had been successful in their appeal against a refusal of planning permission. The Secretary of State had awarded himself and the applicants their costs against the Council. The Council asked the House to give guidance on the . .
Appeal fromBolton Metropolitan Borough Council and Others v Secretary of State for Environment and Others CA 4-Aug-1994
A decision maker can take a preliminary view of a matter provided that he continues to keep an open mind. . .
CitedHope v Secretary of State for the Environment 1975
. .

Cited by:

See alsoBolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others No 2 HL 17-Jul-1995
The applicants had been successful in their appeal against a refusal of planning permission. The Secretary of State had awarded himself and the applicants their costs against the Council. The Council asked the House to give guidance on the . .
CitedSouth Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
CitedHurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Costs, Administrative

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78475

A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees): FD 15 Nov 2000

An application for maintenance pending suit could properly be made, to include payment on account of the legal costs of pursuing the action. Such legal expense were of a recurring, and income type nature. Maintenance was not confined to the day to day living expenses of an applicant. In the absence of a statutory definition, there was neither any case law definition which would preclude such expenses. Without such an order, the impecunious wife would be unable to progress in the single issue which dominated her life.

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2000, Gazette 16-Nov-2000, [2001] 1 FLR 377

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 22

Cited by:

CitedMcFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour CA 7-Jul-2004
Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income.
Held: The . .
CitedBen Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.77586

In re British Gold Fields of West Africa: 1899

An order for costs could be proved where the action was in respect of a provable debt or liability. In such a case they were regarded as an addition to the sum recovered.

Citations:

[1899] 2 Ch 7

Cited by:

CitedHaine v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Another; Day v Haine CA 11-Jun-2008
Former employees had obtained a protective award against the company for failing to consult on the impending redundancies and submitted proofs of debt to the liquidator who sought guidance from the court. The judge had held that since the Act . .
CitedIn re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.268852

Twist v Tye: 1902

The three plaintiff executors, who had unsuccessfully propounded a will, were also residuary legatees under the will, had themselves managed the deceased’s affairs before she made it, and had had ample opportunity of forming an opinion as to her testamentary capacity.
Held: They had not acted improperly, but they had taken a view about the testatrix which turned out to be mistaken. The executors had taken a view and acted upon it, in circumstances where they stood to benefit if the will was upheld. There was accordingly nothing to warrant a departure from the general rule that costs should follow the event.

Judges:

Sir Gorell Barnes

Citations:

[1902] P 92

Citing:

DistinguishedBoughton v Knight 1873
The jury found that the testator had not been of sound mind, memory and understanding when he made the will propounded by the plaintiffs.
Held: The court contrasted a person of ‘sound mind’ with one suffering from ‘delusions’. The amount and . .

Cited by:

CitedKostic v Chaplin and others ChD 7-Dec-2007
The claimant had brought contentious probate proceedings, and succeeded in establishing that the deceased had not had capacity to make the will. The defendant beneficiaries appealed an order for costs.
Held: The costs of the trial itself . .
EndorsedRe Plant deceased 1926
The court considered whether the executor should have his costs out of the estate unless he had acted unreasonably. Scrutton LJ warned: ‘I should be reluctant to do anything to create the idea that unsuccessful litigants might get their costs out of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.263525

Donald Campbell v Pollak: HL 1927

A plaintiff who goes takes his case to trial has no right to costs until an order is made, but if an order is made the court shall order that they follow the event unless in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made. It is only conduct connected with or leading up to the litigation proved before the judge or observed by him during the progress of the case which can provide a proper basis for the exercise of his discretion. It was not permissible for a court to put upon a statute giving unfettered discretion a gloss which would lead to frustration of its obvious purpose but the discretion must be exercised judicially and therefore must be based on some grounds, for a discretion exercised on no grounds cannot be judicial.

Judges:

Viscount Cave LC

Citations:

[1927] AC 732, [1927] All ER 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLamont v Burton CA 9-May-2007
The defendant had settled the claim for damages for personal injury. His payment in had been rejected, but the claimant won a smaller sum at trial. He now argued that the claimant should not receive the full 100% costs uplift provided.
Held: . .
CitedPerinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.253430

Aaron v Shelton: 2004

A party wishing to raise a matter concerning the conduct of the opposing party, either before or during litigation, was under a duty to raise it before the judge making the costs order, was too broadly stated.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1162 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBusiness Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd ChD 31-Jul-2009
The court was asked ‘Where a claimant has picked up one or more costs orders in its favour on the way to a trial, but fails very badly at the trial (for example due to exaggeration), can the costs judge assess those costs at nil on the footing that . .
See AlsoAaron v Shelton SCCO 24-May-2004
. .
See AlsoAaron v Shelton SCCO 24-May-2004
. .
CitedNorthstar Systems Ltd and others v Fielding and others; Ultraframe (UK) Ltd and Others v Fielding and Others (No 2) CA 6-Dec-2006
The parties had disputed ownership of intellectual property rights. The court had found certain parties dishonest. The judge had found the successful defendants honest and adjusted the costs order in their favour. The claimants appealed.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.247886

Roburn Construction Ltd v William Irwin (South) and Co Ltd: 1991

When making an order for security for costs, the court will normally order a substantial sum, but need not.

Citations:

[1991] BCC 726

Cited by:

CitedKeary 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.225885

General of Berne Insurance Company v Jardine Reinsurance Management Ltd and Others: ComC 24 Jun 1997

Costs – Contentious Business Agreement- Section Does not limit the costs recoverable by a successful party to the hourly rates agreed in a Contentious Business Agreement – the limit only applies to the global limit payable under the agreement.

Judges:

Tuckey J

Citations:

[1997] 2 Costs LR 66

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974 60(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromGeneral of Berne Insurance Company v Jardine Reinsurance Management Limited CA 12-Feb-1998
Where only part of action for which costs are awarded, is covered by a contentious business agreement, and the amount recoverable is limited, that part is severable from the balance. A paying party cannot be ordered to pay a receiving party more by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220783

Puddephatt v Leith (No 2): 1916

Citations:

[1916] 2 Ch 168

Cited by:

CitedSonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.216505

Hulbert v Thurston: 1931

In a personal injury action, the infant plaintiff obtained judgment in his favour for damages to be awarded. On appeal that judgment was reversed and judgment was entered in favour of the defendant ‘with the costs including the costs of this appeal’. The costs having been taxed, the defendant’s solicitor proposed to issue a writ of fi. fa. against the infant plaintiff’s next friend, but was told that that was not possible as no order had been made against him. There followed an application for the order to be amended.
Held: When the court had allowed the appeal of the defendant it was asked to order that judgment should be entered for her with costs. That was the order drawn up. ‘In his opinion the addition now asked for was not one that could be made under the slip rule. That rule was intended for the correction of an order which, as drawn up, did not express that which was decided by the Court. It was quite possible that an order in the terms now asked for might have been made if an application had been made at the time, but no such application was made.’

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1931] WN 171

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.200473

G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs): FD 2003

The court considered the argument that a wife’s maintenance pending suit should be limited to her reasonable needs: ‘I do not accept that argument for the following reasons. The purpose of the 1970 Act was to change statutory provisions that were outdated and inadequate and to make a new start. Although the word ‘maintenance’ was used in both SS1 and 6 of 1970 Act (now SS22 and 27 of the MCA 1973) there are changes between section 6 of the 1970 Act (section 27 of the MCA 1973 and its predecessors and the word ‘maintenance’ is not used in the predecessors to section 1 of the 1970 Act (section 22 of the MCA 1973). The subsequent amendments to section 27 of the MCA 1973 confirm or clarify that ‘maintenance’ was not used by Parliament to refer to the old common law duty of a husband to maintain his wife. The report (read alone and together with the Working Paper) supports the conclusion that ‘maintenance’ was not used by Parliament to refer to the old common law duty of a husband to maintain his wife.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

(2003) 2 FCR 339

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25, Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970

Cited by:

CitedMcFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour CA 7-Jul-2004
Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.198587

Fairfax (John) and Sons v E C de Witt and Co: CA 1958

Citations:

[1958] 1 QB 323

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

OverruledAiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.193433

Director of Public Prosecutions v Denham and Another: 1991

‘Improper’ within the regulation does not mean morally reprehensible but improper in the sense of an act or omission which would not have occurred if the party concerned had conducted his case properly.

Citations:

[1991] 3 WLR 235

Statutes:

Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 3

Cited by:

CitedOddy, Regina (on the Application of) v Bugbugs Ltd Admn 12-Nov-2003
A private prosecutor appealed dismissal of his complaint that the respondent had operated an unlicensed man-powered rickshaw service. The district judge had held that it was not a taxi service. It was, under the 1869 Act a stage carriage and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.193392

Raeburn v Andrews: 1878

Security for costs

Citations:

[1874] LR 9 QB 118

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ConsideredPorzelack 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192280

Anderson v Hills Automobiles (Woodford) Ltd: 1965

Judges:

Scott LJ

Citations:

[1965] CLY 3177, [1965] 1 WLR 745

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Not FollowedLockley v National Blood Transfusion Service CA 1992
There was an interlocutory dispute over the granting of an extension of time for service of the defence. The legally aided plaintiff challenged the costs orders made by the district registrar and the judge. Each ordered that the costs be the . .
CitedSonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190231

Lockley v National Blood Transfusion Service: CA 1992

There was an interlocutory dispute over the granting of an extension of time for service of the defence. The legally aided plaintiff challenged the costs orders made by the district registrar and the judge. Each ordered that the costs be the defendants’, ‘not to be enforced without leave of the court save by way of set-off as against damages and/or costs’.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal on the costs order failed. ‘The issue in this appeal is whether, in a case where one party is legally aided, an order for costs in favour of the other party can direct that those costs be set-off against either damages or costs to which the legally aided party has become, or may in future become, entitled in the action.’
The court confirmed the right of a party to set off a costs award against a subsequent damages or costs award in favour of an assisted person. Section 16(8) simply preserved those rights of set-off that the general law would allow and protected them against the charge created by section 16(6). It did not create any new right of set-off. Its effect was to make it clear that whatever rights of set-off were available under the general law were available against legally aided parties notwithstanding the board’s charge.
Scott LJ discussed the principles applying on an application for set-off costs: ‘The broad criterion for the application of set-off is that the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s claim are so closely connected that it would be inequitable to allow the plaintiff’s claim without taking into account the defendant’s claim. As it has sometimes been put, the defendant’s claim must, in equity, impeach the plaintiff’s claim.
Set-off of costs or damages to which one party is entitled against costs or damages to which another party is entitled depends upon the application of the equitable criterion I have endeavoured to express. It was treated by May J in Currie and Co v The Law Society [1977] QB 990, 1000, as a ‘question for the court’s discretion’. It is possible to regard all questions regarding costs as being subject to the statutory discretion conferred on the court by section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. But I would not have thought that a set-off of damages against damages could properly be described as a discretionary matter, nor that a set-off of costs against damages could be so described.’ and ‘A set-off of costs against costs, when all are incurred in the prosecution or defence of the same action, seems so natural and equitable as not to need any special justification. I would expect a party objecting to the set-off to give some special reason for the objection. It is, in my opinion, less obvious that a set-off of costs against damages would always be justified.’

Judges:

Farquharson LJ, Sir John Megaw, Scott L

Citations:

[1992] 1 WLR 492, [1992] 2 All ER 589

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1974 16(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not FollowedAnderson v Hills Automobiles (Woodford) Ltd 1965
. .
AppliedCook v Swinfen CA 1967
The plaintiff could not recover damages for the mental distress of conducting litigation. The court found it difficult to draw the line as to where such damage could be identified. In this case the damage could not reasonably be said to have flowed . .
CitedCarr v Boxall 1960
. .
CitedCurrie and Co v The Law Society 1976
Set-off of costs or damages to which one party is entitled against costs or damages to which another party is entitled depends upon the application of equitable rules. May J said: ‘[T]he set-off takes precedence over the solicitor’s particular lien, . .

Cited by:

AppliedHill v Bailey ChD 25-Nov-2003
Costs orders had been made against each party in favour of the other. One was legally aided.
Held: Though the legally aided party was entitled to some protection against enforcement of an order for costs, he was not protected against the other . .
CitedSonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .
CitedFranses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
CitedAhmad v London Borough of Brent and Others QBD 25-Feb-2011
. .
CitedRybak and Others v Langbar International Ltd ChD 18-Feb-2011
. .
CitedWaltham Forest v Maloba, The Law Society CA 4-Dec-2007
The applicant had been refused accomodation as homeless after disclosing the ownership of a family home in Uganda. He had lived and worked in the UK for 15 years. The authority did not accept that it had later been repossessed. The council now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190229

Hicks v Russell Jones and Walker: 27 Oct 2000

Judges:

Robert Walker LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 27 October 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHill v Bailey ChD 25-Nov-2003
Costs orders had been made against each party in favour of the other. One was legally aided.
Held: Though the legally aided party was entitled to some protection against enforcement of an order for costs, he was not protected against the other . .
CitedSonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190232