Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999

In personal injury cases, a judge deciding on the award of costs after a payment in, and where a benefits recovery was to take effect, was to judge the issue of costs by measuring the offer against the payment in or written offer, aggregated with the effect of the benefits to be deducted.

Citations:

Times 01-Jul-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1519

Statutes:

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages, Costs

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.146434

Danemark Limited v BAA Plc: CA 16 Oct 1995

The defendant had obtained an order or additional security for costs against the defendant company (registered with andpound;100 share capital) under the section. It appealed. There was evidence to suggest some fraud by the plaintiff, but also that there was a genuine claim. The court had a difficult balance to draw between stifling a proper claim by a small company and putting the defendant at risk of incurring costs the plaintiff could not meet. The judge had erred, and the security order was vacated.

Citations:

[1995] EWCA Civ 6

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 726(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedKeary 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.

Company, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.140365

Ashford Hotels Ltd v Higgins and Others: CA 14 Aug 1995

An order for Security for costs was possible even where the trial may yet proceed in a foreign jurisdiction. Even though the court had jurisdiction over the defendants, a court could stay an action to allow an action to proceed abroad if that would be more appropriate.

Citations:

Ind Summary 14-Aug-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.77894

One Blackfriars Ltd, Re: ChD 30 Apr 2021

Consequential matters relating to costs and interest arising from main judgment..

Judges:

John Kimbell QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 1150 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoHyde and Another (Liquidators of One Blackfriars Ltd) v Nygate and Another ChD 30-Apr-2021
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.662410

Sonmez v Kebabery Wholesale Ltd: CA 22 Oct 2009

How does one apply the general rule that costs follow the event where the defendant in personal injury litigation admits primary liability, but then raises an issue of contributory negligence in which his Part 36 offers are closer than the claimant’s to the eventual apportionment of liability made at the trial?

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1386

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.392504

Wyllie and Others v Phillips: 6 May 1837

After the service of a writ of summons Defendant paid the debt surreptitiously to Plaintiff’s clerk, without costs ; Plaintiff’s attorney, with a view to recover his costs, proceeded to deliver a declaration. The Court ordered proceedings to be stayed on payment of the costs of the writ of summons.

Citations:

[1837] EngR 723, (1837) 3 Bing NC 776, (1837) 132 ER 610 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.313840

Doe Dem Capps v Capps: 6 May 1837

Upon staying proceedings in ejectment by mortgagee, on payment of debt and costs under 7 G. 2, c. 20, the costs are taxed only as between party and party and not as between attorney and client.

Citations:

[1837] EngR 711, (1837) 3 Bing NC 768, (1837) 132 ER 607 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.313828

Pitchmastic Plc v Birse Construction Ltd: QBD 8 Jun 2000

A party to litigation made an offer on the day before trial of settlement without prejudice save as to costs. At trial it made an open offer in similar terms which was rejected. After reading a draft unfavourable judgment, the party applied to be allowed to accept the offer, contending that such an offer was to remain open for 21 days in any event. The rules allowed a party to withdraw such an offer, and such situations must be decided by ordinary rules of offer and acceptance. The rules which apply to acceptance of a payment in do not necessarily apply to offers to settle. There is no rule requiring the permission of the court before allowing the withdrawal of an offer of settlement, and the test for whether such an offer remained capable of acceptance was the normal one of offer and acceptance.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-2000, Times 21-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.84743

Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v Aldington: CA 27 Dec 1995

Solicitors who unreasonably commence proceedings may be subject to a wasted costs order, but there should be no award of costs against a solicitor solely because he acted without a fee. An award of costs should not be made against a solicitor who had acted for a client in a defamation action which was lost, and where the costs would be irrecoverable from the plaintiff, solely because the solicitor had acted without a fee.
Rose LJ said: ‘Section 51(1) and (3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 do not confer jurisdiction to make an order for costs against legal representatives when acting as legal representatives.’ and ‘In my judgment Mr Mansfield is correct in his submission that there are only three categories of conduct which can give rise to an order for costs against a solicitor:
1. It is within the wasted costs jurisdiction of section 51(6) and (7);
2. It is otherwise a breach of duty to the court, such as even before the Judicature Acts could found an order, eg if he acts even unwittingly without authority or in breach of an undertaking;
3. If he acts outside the role of solicitor, eg in a private capacity or as a true third party funder for someone else.’

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

Gazette 10-Jan-1996, Independent 03-Jan-1996, Times 27-Dec-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 736

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51(6) 51(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoWatts v Aldington, Tolstoy v Aldington CA 15-Dec-1993
There had been a settlement of proceedings for libel brought by Lord Aldington against Mr Nigel Watts and Count Nikolai Tolstoy. Lord Aldington had obtained judgment for andpound;1.5 million in damages against both defendants following a trial. . .
See AlsoTolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .

Cited by:

CitedLiubov Ford v Richard Labrador PC 22-May-2003
(Gibraltar) The appellant had failed in an action for defamation, she had been ordered to pay costs as a condition of her continuing the action.
Held: The order was made by the Chief Justice sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal in an . .
See AlsoTolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .
See AlsoWatts v Aldington, Tolstoy v Aldington CA 15-Dec-1993
There had been a settlement of proceedings for libel brought by Lord Aldington against Mr Nigel Watts and Count Nikolai Tolstoy. Lord Aldington had obtained judgment for andpound;1.5 million in damages against both defendants following a trial. . .
CitedMyatt and others v National Coal Board (No 2) CA 16-Mar-2007
The parties had been involved in compensation claims. Complaint was made that the solicitors had recovered fees for action which substantially was intended to benefit the solicitor. The conditional fee agreements had been found to be unenforceable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Defamation, Legal Professions

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.89912

Jonathan Alexander Ltd v Proctor: CA 19 Dec 1995

A company represented in proceedings by a director is not a litigant in person, and therefore has no expenses or costs claimable from the other party.
Hirst LJ said: ‘. . the ordinary meaning, as I understand it, of the description ‘litigant in person’, viz an unrepresented individual’.
Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘A litigant in person in ordinary parlance is a party to litigation who represents himself by appearing in court himself. If someone other than himself represents him, then notwithstanding that that other person is his agent, that party is not a litigant in person’.

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-1996, Ind Summary 22-Jan-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 518

Statutes:

Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975, County Court Rules 1981 Order 38 r17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DistinguishedAndre Agassi v S Robinson (H M Inspector of Taxes) (No 2) CA 2-Dec-2005
The taxpayer had been represented in proceedings throughout by tax law experts, Tenon Media, who were not legally admitted, but had a right to conduct litigation under the 1990 Act. The Inspector objected to paying costs as if the representatives . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.82579

Shah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd (Costs): CA 4 Feb 2010

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 220

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedShah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd QBD 26-Jan-2009
The claimants sought damages after delays by the bank in processing transfer requests. The bank said that the delays were made pending reports of suspected criminal activity. The bank’s delay had stigmatised the claimant causing further losses. The . .
Main JudgmentShah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd CA 4-Feb-2010
Money laundering suspicion to be explained
The customer sought to sue his bank for failing to meet his cheque. The bank sought to rely on the 2002 Act, having reported suspicious activity on freezing the account. He now appealed against summary judgment given for the bank which had refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.551925

Jones and Others v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Another: QBD 3 May 2013

The claimants sought an order for pre-judgment interest on the disbursements incurred in this group litigation. The clients were liable for payment of the disbursements under the conditional fee agreements, and in this case these amounted to over andpound;750,000.
Held: The order was made for the period from the date of the signing of the credit agreement.

Judges:

Swift J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1023 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedJaura v Ahmed CA 21-Feb-2002
The applicant sought damages for the wrongful termination of her lease by the respondent. The landlords re-entered in default of payment of the rent. The premises had been sub-let, and she sought damages for the loss of rental profits.
Held: . .
CitedBim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 24-Jun-2003
It had been argued by the claimant in written submissions (although not maintained orally) that an order for payment of pre-judgment interest on costs should never be made. As to an award of interest on costs:- ‘In any event in principle there seems . .
CitedBP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) 1979
The contract between the parties relating to an oil concession in Libya had been frustrated by the nationalisation of the field.
Held: The court considered the setting of damages where the plaintiff had delayed in notifying the defendant of . .
CitedTate and Lyle Food Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council 1981
Forbes J considered the principles to be applied when considering the award of interest on damages between the date of the loss and the judgment: ‘Despite the way in which Lord Herschell LC in London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co v South Eastern . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.495192

Shah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd: QBD 5 Jul 2012

Judges:

Mr Justice Supperstone

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1855 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoShah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd QBD 26-Jan-2009
The claimants sought damages after delays by the bank in processing transfer requests. The bank said that the delays were made pending reports of suspected criminal activity. The bank’s delay had stigmatised the claimant causing further losses. The . .
Main JudgmentShah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd QBD 16-May-2012
The Claimants claimed damages in a sum in excess of US$300,000,000 arising out of delays by the Defendant, their bankers, in executing four transfers from the Claimants’ account during the period September 2006 to March 2007 and the Defendant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.461956

Germany v Flatman: QBD 10 Nov 2011

In each case the defendant had succeeded in a defence of a personal injury claim, but had been unable to recover the costs, the claimant being impecunious, and the solicitors having acted on a conditional fee basis and without any after the event insurance. They now sought disclosure of the funding arrangements in detail, suspecting the action had been funded by the solicitors.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2945 (QB), [2012] 2 Costs LR 271

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.448310

Cowderoy v Cranfield: ChD 13 Oct 2011

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2628 (Ch), [2011] WTLR 1741

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Principal judgmentCowderoy v Cranfield ChD 24-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged a will alleging lack of capacity, non-approval and undue influence.
Held: Morgan J discussed the standard of proof applicable: ‘The requisite standard is proof on the balance of probabilities but as the allegation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.446008

Parkes v Martin: CA 9 Jul 2009

The claimant appealed against the costs order made after a trial following a road traffic accident, awarding blame as to 65% for the Claimant and 35% to the defendant. The Defendant had requested costs in that proportion. After reminding himself of CPR 44.34, the court awarded the Claimant 35% of his costs on liability. However the Order left the Defendant to pay his own costs. The appeal challenged the Order as a misdirection since the Claimant was the winner having established liability albeit with a substantial reduction for contributory negligence. The suggested appropriate course was a conventional order awarding him his costs. There was nothing before the judge to justify depriving him of 65% of his costs. On appeal the defendant argued that each party had a damages claim arising from the accident. Only by chance was the Claimant ‘first off the grid’. The order left the Claimant to recover 35% and the Defendant 65% of their respective costs. Though there was no counterclaim, the Defendant had a claim which stood by. Had there been a formal counterclaim, it was submitted, the judge could have awarded to the Claimant/Appellant the costs of the claim and to the Defendant/Respondent those of the counterclaim.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The court considered Medway Oil and Storage Company Ltd v Continental Contractors Ltd and Ors [1929] AC 88 where the court allowed that absent a direction by the court on apportionment any such order made on detailed assessment will produce injustice where a like issue arises on claim and on counterclaim. A court would be justified in apportioning costs. The judge had recognised that the outcome of the issue as to liability was determinative both of claim and of counterclaim and that the award as he made it was within his discretion.

Judges:

Rix LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 883, [2010] PIQR P1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMedway Oil and Storage Co Ltd v Continental Contractors Ltd HL 1929
The court set down the principles to be applied when apportioning costs between a claim and counterclaim. Where both the claim and the counter-claim are dismissed with costs, the amount that the Claimant will recover in defeating the counter-claim . .

Cited by:

CitedHorth v Thompson QBD 6-Jul-2010
After a personal injury claim, the judge had apportioned liability and ordered each side to pay the costs of the other. The case had been allocated to the fast track.
Held: The appeal failed. The existence of the Conditional Fee Agreement did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.374417

Cepheus Shipping Corporation v Guardian Royal Exchange Plc: 1995

Judges:

Mance J

Citations:

[1995] 1 LL Rep 647

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThree Rivers District Council and others v The Governor and Company of the Bank of England ComC 12-Apr-2006
The claimants had pursued compensation over many years from the defendants alleging various kinds of misfeasance in regulating the bank BCCI. The action had collapsed.
Held: ‘this was extraordinary litigation which came to an abrupt albeit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.240387

Armitage v Nurse: SCCO 11 Apr 2000

review of counsel’s fees in a legal aid only case

Judges:

Mr Justice Lloyd Sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 9008 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoArmitage v Nurse; etc CA 19-Mar-1997
A clause in a trust deed may validly excuse trustees from personal liability for even gross negligence. The trustee was exempted from liability for loss or damage ‘unless such loss or damage shall be caused by his own actual fraud’.
Held: The . .
At first InstanceArmitage v Nurse and Others ChD 3-Jul-1995
A clause exonerating trustees from responsibility for breaches of duty will be construed strictly against them. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.235625

Hornsby v Clarke Kenneth Leventhal (A Firm): SCCO 16 Jun 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 9012 (Costs), [2000] 4 All ER 567, [2000] 2 Costs LR 295

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoHornsby and others v Clark Kenneth Leventhal (a Firm) and others CA 19-Mar-1998
. .

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

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.235629

Steel and Morris v McDonald’s Corporation and Mcdonald’s Restaurants Ltd: CA 30 Apr 1999

The respondents had achieved a substantial damages award against the appellants. The appellants said they had achieved success on two points and sought an order in their favour for the costs of those elements.
Held: ‘The appellants have no order for costs against them and it is impossible in our view for them now to seek an order for costs in their favour when the most they could have hoped for, by reason of their partial success on this appeal, was the reduction of the order for costs against them by way of a proportional reduction. ‘

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1319

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoSteel and Morris v McDonald’s Corporation and Mcdonald’s Restaurants Ltd CA 31-Mar-1999
The appellants had lost a substantial defamation claim against them brought by the respondents. They appealed. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoSteel and Morris v McDonald’s Corporation and Mcdonald’s Restaurants Ltd CA 31-Mar-1999
The appellants had lost a substantial defamation claim against them brought by the respondents. They appealed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.223400

Hunt 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 awarded costs in an action is entitled to interest on subsequently taxed costs from the date of judgment, and the same principle applies where there is a consent order, the relevant date being the date of the stay. Historically interest has always been awarded on costs generally from the date of judgment, and no distinction has ever been made between different types of costs, for example, costs of the action or of taxation. As to the incipitur rule: ‘It is the unsuccessful party to the litigation who, ex hypothesi, has caused the costs unnecessarily to be incurred. Hence the order made against him. Since interest is not awarded on costs incurred and paid by the successful party before judgment, why should he suffer the added loss of interest on costs incurred and paid after judgment but before the taxing master gives his certificate?’ (Lord Ackner)

Judges:

Lord Ackner

Citations:

[1990] 1 AC 398

Statutes:

Judgments Act 1838 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNykredit Mortgage Bank Plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (No 2) HL 27-Nov-1997
A surveyor’s negligent valuation had led to the plaintiff obtaining what turned out to be inadequate security for his loan. A cause of action against a valuer for his negligent valuation arises when a relevant and measurable loss is first recorded. . .
CitedThomas 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 . .
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.

Costs, Damages

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.183435

Miskin, Miskin v St John Vaughan: SCCO 18 Sep 2002

The claimants resisted an order to pay the VAT element awarded on the defendant’s legal costs. The revenue had been unable to state clearly whether the defendant would be able to recover VAT, in which case it would not be payable, or the reverse. It had at the same time become clear that costs had been invoiced to the insurers, and the claimant challenged a liability to the defendant when the bill had not been addressed to him.
Held: Costs could be claimed even if they may in fact be paid by a third party. Although the insurance company had taken over the claim, the indemnity principle had not been infringed, because the party would not look only to the insurers to pay their costs. VAT was not payable to a party who could recover their VAT as input tax. The party no longer existed, and was no longer registered for VAT. The insurers had however paid part of the VAT, and it was properly recoverable.

Judges:

Master Campbell, Costs Judge

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 9007 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Costs Practice Direction 43 5.3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDavies v Taylor (No 2) HL 2-Jan-1974
The plaintiff argued that no costs had been incurred by the successful defendant, as he was insured, and the insurance company was bound to pay his costs.
Held: ‘In this case the solicitors, no doubt first instructed by the insurance company, . .
CitedRegina v Miller and Glennie; Miller v- Glennie 1983
The question was whether or not the litigants had incurred liability for costs in cases in which they had been supported by their employer.
Held: Where the solicitor is on the record for the client in the litigation, there is a rebuttable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, VAT

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.175483

Camiller v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 14 May 1999

Where a civil trial was being conducted before a jury, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict, the proper and normal costs order was that costs should be in cause. A reluctance by one party to accept a majority verdict made no difference.

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1418

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.78862

Kay v Chitolie: CA 28 Apr 1999

The Defendant sought to avoid paying the VAT on a costs order arguing that the bill did not show the solicitors’ VAT registration number.
Held: It was easily ascertainable. The VAT was payable.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1279

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.146194

Easyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd: ChD 8 Apr 2009

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 779 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoEasyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd ChD 2-Mar-2009
Principles Applicable on Summary Judgment Request
The court considered an application for summary judgment.
Held: Lewison J set out the principles: ‘the court must be careful before giving summary judgment on a claim. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.573626

Reynolds v Stone Rowe Brewer (A Firm): QBD 18 Mar 2008

The solicitors appealed against the assessment of their costs. The judge had found that they had estimated their costs and applied a 15% margin of error.
Held: the judge should have given reasons for his judgment to allow the parties to assess the prospects of an appeal. There had been unusual developments, but the estimates given were in any event just too low. The costs judge had been entitled to come to the conclusion he had. The judge in Wong v Vizards had not applied a percentage, but had set the costs awarded, and noted that this was about 15%.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 497 (QB), [2008] 4 Costs LR 545

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWong v Vizards 1997
The solicitors had sent to the client a written fee proposal for a forthcoming case which they said was drafted on ‘the worst case basis’, saying ‘I provided you with a fee proposal which hopefully sets out the fullest extent of your liability to . .
CitedAnthony v Ellis and Fairbairn (A Firm) SCCO 12-May-2000
The court considered a solicitor’s bill which vastly exceeded the estimate given. . .
CitedMastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers Llp ChD 23-Nov-2007
The court considered an appeal against a costs award where the solicitors had given an estimate, but had then exceeded the estimate.
Held: Morgan J said: ‘The closing submissions were recorded by the Costs Judge at paragraph 59 and 60 of his . .
CitedGarbutt and Another v Edwards and Another CA 27-Oct-2005
The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate.
Held: The absence of . .
CitedLeigh v Michelin Tyre Plc CA 8-Dec-2003
The parties had submitted costs estimates which proved later to be quite inadequate.
Held: It was a central principle of the Civil Procedure Rules that costs should be controlled. Solicitors should file costs estimates not only at the . .
CitedFlannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .

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.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.266907

Cambridge Antibody Technology v Abbott Biotechnology Ltd and Another: 2005

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 357 (Ch)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Principal JudgmentCambridge Antibody Technology v Abbott Biotechnology Ltd and Another Patc 20-Dec-2004
Rectification of an agreement was sought.
Held: Laddie J rejected a submission that evidence of the subjective state of mind of one of the parties contained in statements which had not been communicated to the other party (‘crossed the line’) . .

Cited by:

CitedThree Rivers District Council and others v The Governor and Company of the Bank of England ComC 12-Apr-2006
The claimants had pursued compensation over many years from the defendants alleging various kinds of misfeasance in regulating the bank BCCI. The action had collapsed.
Held: ‘this was extraordinary litigation which came to an abrupt albeit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.240386

Wong v Vizards: 1997

The solicitors had sent to the client a written fee proposal for a forthcoming case which they said was drafted on ‘the worst case basis’, saying ‘I provided you with a fee proposal which hopefully sets out the fullest extent of your liability to this firm for costs likely to be incurred in the future’. The client said that the solicitor should be bound by this estimate, and he appealed against a detailed assessment of costs. Costs were assessed at the amount shown in the original estimate plus 15%.
Held: The court referred to rules 3, 4 and 6 in the Solicitors’ Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999 and to a number of authorities. A client knows that he will be charged by his solicitor and thus a solicitor who fails to give an estimate should not thereby be disentitled from receiving any fees. The court held the solicitors to the estimated sum plus 15%, but also allowed the solicitor to recover the costs of communications with the client on the basis that these were not covered by the estimate and so (by implication) the Judge reasoned that the client must have expected to pay separately for these communications: ‘It is open to Mr Wong to argue that in determining what is a reasonable amount for him to pay for the work done, regard should be had to the level of costs which he had been led to believe represented a worst case assessment of his potential liability.’

Judges:

Toulson J

Citations:

[1997] 2 Costs LR 46

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGarbutt and Another v Edwards and Another CA 27-Oct-2005
The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate.
Held: The absence of . .
CitedReynolds v Stone Rowe Brewer (A Firm) QBD 18-Mar-2008
The solicitors appealed against the assessment of their costs. The judge had found that they had estimated their costs and applied a 15% margin of error.
Held: the judge should have given reasons for his judgment to allow the parties to assess . .
ApprovedAnthony v Ellis and Fairbairn (A Firm) SCCO 12-May-2000
The court considered a solicitor’s bill which vastly exceeded the estimate given. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.231523

Anthony v Ellis and Fairbairn (A Firm): SCCO 12 May 2000

The court considered a solicitor’s bill which vastly exceeded the estimate given.

Judges:

Sir Oliver Popplewell

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 9009 (Costs), [2002] 2 Costs LR 277, [2000] 2 Costs LR 277

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedWong v Vizards 1997
The solicitors had sent to the client a written fee proposal for a forthcoming case which they said was drafted on ‘the worst case basis’, saying ‘I provided you with a fee proposal which hopefully sets out the fullest extent of your liability to . .

Cited by:

CitedReynolds v Stone Rowe Brewer (A Firm) QBD 18-Mar-2008
The solicitors appealed against the assessment of their costs. The judge had found that they had estimated their costs and applied a 15% margin of error.
Held: the judge should have given reasons for his judgment to allow the parties to assess . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.235626

Cole v British Telecommunications Plc: SCCO 4 Jul 2000

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal to the decision of Mr Justice Alliott sitting with assessors (No.11 of 1999). The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Mr Justice Alliott, both the Judge and his assessors concluding that this was not a special case within Re: Eastwood.
‘The judgment of this court in Re: Eastwood establishing that the conventional method appropriate to taxing the bill of a solicitor in private practice is also appropriate for the bill of an in-house solicitor in all but special cases where it is reasonably plain that that method will infringe the indemnity principle. Such a special case will arise where a sum can be identified, different from that used by the conventional approach, which is adequate to cover the actual cost incurred in doing all the work done. Such a sum may be identified by concession (see [1975] 1 Ch at pages 130G to 131A) or, presumably, by the factual assessment of the taxing tribunal itself: but that possibility does not justify a detailed investigation into every case (ibid at page p132E).’

Judges:

Court of Appeal Lord Justice Buxton and Mr Justice Hooper

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 9014 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.235630

Leadbeater v Leadbeater: 1985

The court considered the case of a couple, in their mid-forties. Both had previously been married and both their former spouses married each other. They enjoyed a high standard of living. W brought with her two (2) adopted children from the former marriage. W suffered from a drinking problem. When H brought a teenaged friend of the adopted daughter to live with them, W reacted by going to Cyprus and committing adultery with different persons. H offered to take her back on the condition that the friend of her daughter be permitted to stay in the house.
Held: The deplorable conduct of each party cancelled the effect of the other.
In calculating the matrimonial assets, Balcombe J added back the paid costs of each party into the Schedule of assets, since the assessment of an applicant’s needs without both adding back payments made and disregarding liability for unpaid costs incurred and to be incurred, would effectively anticipate the costs order that would eventually be made.

Judges:

Balcombe J

Citations:

[1985] FLR 789

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWells v Wells CA 20-Mar-2002
The court considered an application for ancillary relief. The assets were substantial, but before the judge was to deliver his judgment he accepted evidence from the husand that the sale of his business had fallen through and H’s income . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.235283

Amec Process and Energy Ltd v Stork Engineers and Contractors Bv (A Company Registered In the Netherlands) (No 3): 15 Mar 2002

Citations:

Unreported, 15 March 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSisu Capital Fund Ltd and others v Tucker and others 28-Oct-2005
The Defendants were accountants who had been sued through their partnership in KPMG. They had been granted a order for their costs. They sought payment for the time they had spent prersonally in preparing their defences.
Held: As professionals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.234457

Mcleod v Common Professional Examination Board: SCCO 13 Mar 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 9007 (Costs)

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
. .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.235624

Ortwein v Rugby Mansions Ltd: 2004

Judges:

Lloyd J

Citations:

[2004] 1 Costs LR 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ElaboratedGiambrone and others v JMC Holidays Ltd (Formerly Sunworld Holidays Ltd) QBD 20-Dec-2002
. .

Cited by:

CitedRoss v Stonewood Securities Ltd ChD 7-Oct-2004
The claimant appealed an order reducing his award of costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.216346

Adoko v Office for the Supervision of Solicitors: Admn 15 Jul 2003

The applicant had been made subject of an order preventing his employment as a clerk by any firm of solicitors. A costs order accompanied that order. The order was later the subject of a default costs certificate. He sought to appeal that certificate.
Held: The correct and only way to challenge such an order was application under CPR47.12. In any event there was required to be shown evidence demonstrating ‘a good reason why detailed assessment proceedings should continue’ (CPR47.12(2)). No such reason was adduced. An appeal was not a possible route of challenge. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Dyson, Mr Justice Gibbs

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1899 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 47.12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.185810

Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Albluewi: QBD 28 May 2020

Judges:

Freedman J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1368 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoLes Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Albluewi (Aka Sheikh Salah Hamdan Albluewi and Mr Salah Hamdan Albelwi) QBD 22-May-2020
Application for discharge of world wide freezing order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651225

Hunt v Yearwood-Grazette: ChD 7 Apr 2009

The bankrupt wished to discharge his bankruptcy debt, but challenged the trustee’s fees.
Held: The court approved application of the Practice Statement 2004.
Proudman J said: ‘The court’s task is to balance all the various criteria, resolving any conflict between them arising in the particular case, in order to arrive at the proper level of remuneration. In doing so, it is settled law that the court has to reward the value and benefits of the services rendered rather than the cost of rendering such services. Thus, in fixing the remuneration, time spent is less relevant than value provided. I was referred to the judgment of Ferris J in Mirror Group Newspapers plc v Maxwell and Others (No 2) [1998] 1 BCLC 638, [1998] BCC 324 and also Cooper v The Official Receiver [2005] NICh 1. The onus of demonstrating such value or benefit is on the applicant and the court must resolve any element of doubt in favour of the estate.’

Judges:

Proudman J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC B13 (Ch), [2009] BPIR 810

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 375(2), Insolvency Rules 1986 74(2), Practice Statement: The Fixing and Approval of the Remuneration of Appointees (2004)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBrook v Reed CA 25-Mar-2011
The court was asked ‘What relation should the costs and remuneration bear to the circumstances, and in particular the size, of the bankruptcy?’ The bankrupt had considered that the costs first awarded to the trustee in bankruptcy and the trustee’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.420430

Equity Solicitors v Javid: CA 20 Mar 2009

Appeal from wasted costs order.
Held: ‘Mr Sattar was not in any way negligent in this matter and did not in any way fall below the standards of a competent solicitor. Rather, he acted as a good Samaritan and did all he could to help this vulnerable lady whilst making perfectly plain to her, to Cottams and to the court that he could not do more. It was not justifiable to make any order for wasted costs against his firm and, indeed, he should be thanked, and I now personally thank him, for his generous and public-spirited services. I, for my part, would allow this appeal and set aside that sentence of the order made on 16 September 2008 which orders Equity Solicitors to pay wasted costs in the sum of pounds 981.13.’

Judges:

Wilson L, Holman J

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 535, [2009] 2 FLR 1011, [2009] Fam Law 806, [2010] 1 FCR 60

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Costs

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.347111

Weaver v London Quadrant Housing Trust: CA 17 Feb 2009

The respondent sought leave to appeal against a finding that as a registered social landlord it was exercising a public function and was a hybrid public authority.
Held: Leave was granted. A protective costs order was made for the respondent to ensure proper representation of both sides before the court.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 235, [2009] 6 Costs LR 875

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First InstanceWeaver, Regina (on the Application of) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust Admn 24-Jun-2008
An assured tenant sought to challenge a possession order made for rent arrears. He said that as a public body the landlord had a duty under human rights law to pursue all posssible alternate solutions before seeking possession.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Leave to appealLondon and Quadrant Housing Trust v Weaver, Regina; Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening CA 18-Jun-2009
The Trust appealed against a finding that in terminating an assured tenancy transferred to it from a local authority, it had acted as a hybrid public authority and was subject to controls under the 1998 Act.
Held: (Rix LJ dissenting). The . .
CitedE, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 14-Oct-2009
The claimant had successfully challenged the policy of the school as racially discriminatory. He now sought an ancillary order that the respondents should not be allowed to request their costs from the defendant’s appeal whatever the outcome, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights, Costs

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.324676

Mills v Birchall and Another: CA 18 Apr 2008

The appeal raised the question whether, when a receiver appointed under a bank charge causes an insolvent company to sue, the action is unsuccessful and the successful party is unable to recover costs against the company, the successful party may recover the costs from the receiver under the jurisdiction in section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to award costs against a non-party.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 385, [2008] 2 BCLC 774, [2008] NPC 48, [2008] 1 WLR 1829, [2008] 4 All ER 58, [2008] BPIR 607, [2008] CP Rep 29, [2008] BCC 471, [2008] 4 Costs LR 599, [2008] Bus LR 1520

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.266982