Mann v Mann: FD 5 Mar 2014

The parties had agreed to an order settling the ancillary relief application with enforcement first to be through mediation. W applied to court for enforcement rejecting H’s request for mediation.

Mostyn J
[2014] WLR(D) 114,, [2014] Fam Law 795, [2014] 1 WLR 2807, [2014] EWHC 537 (Fam)
Bailii, WLRD
Family Proceedings Rules 3.3(1)(b)
Citing:
CitedHalsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc CA 11-May-2004
The court considered the effect on costs orders of a refusal to take part in alternate dispute resolution procedures. The defendant Trust had refused to take the dispute to a mediation. In neither case had the court ordered or recommended ADR.
Family, Costs

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522291

Re S (Children): CA 28 Feb 2014

F appealed against a placement order in respect of his daughter. The court was asked whether the judgment had been based upon proper evidence and reasoned sufficiently.
Held: The appeal was allowed, an interim care order is substituted in place of the full care order made and the case is remitted to HHJ Karp for further case management directions and, ultimately re-hearing.
It was ordered that the local authority should pay the father’s legal costs because it had resisted the appeal, and it was necessary not to deter a parent from challenging decisions which impact on the most crucial of human relationships. The principle in In re T was not applicable to appeals.

Macur DBE, Sharp DBE JJ, Sir Robin Jacob
[2014] EWCA Civ 135, [2015] 1 FLR 130
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRe S (A Child) SC 25-Mar-2015
The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.521937

Serious Fraud Office and Others v Litigation Capital Ltd and Others (Costs and Consequentials): ComC 21 Oct 2021

[2021] EWHC 2803 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoSerious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd and Others ComC 24-Feb-2020
. .
See AlsoThe Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd ComC 20-May-2020
Hearing of the latest case management conference in a case involving competing claims to interests in a variety of assets. . .
See AlsoThe Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd ComC 21-Dec-2020
. .
See AlsoThe Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd and Others ComC 18-May-2021
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.668659

Messrs JH and IM Ward (Partnership) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Jan 2014

FTTTx COSTS – On 12 November 2013 HMRC conceded all disputed matters in a standard category appeal listed for hearing on 22 November 2013 – Appeal settled by agreement on 19 November 2013 – Failure of HMRC to comply with Directions – Whether HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting proceedings – Rule 10(1)(b) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Tax Chamber) Rules 2009

[2014] UKFTT 108 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521715

Regina (on the Application of James) v Joint Disciplinary Scheme: Admn 20 Dec 2001

The applicant had paid a sum into court by way of costs to allow him to appeal the decision. That appeal was denied, and he turned instead to the European Court of Human Rights. The defendant applied for the sum to be paid out, and the applicant that it be left in court pending the application to the European Court.
Held: The money had been paid in expressly pending the determination of the Court of Appeal. That had been paid out, and there remained no reason for the defendant to be kept out of his costs.

Justice Stanley Burnton
[2001] EWHC Admin 1068
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.167372

Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs: CA 26 Feb 2014

The court was asked whether the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) had jurisdiction to make an order that the costs of preparing hearing bundles for a substantive appeal by the appellant taxpayer should be shared equally between the taxpayer and the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Held; The taxpayer’s appeal failed.

Moses, Black, Kitchin LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 184
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs SCIT 17-Feb-2009
SCIT Closure notice – application for direction to close enquiry into tax return – limited liability partnership – s 28B Taxes Management Act 1970 – direction for closure within three months . .
See AlsoEclipse Film Partners No. 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Sep-2010
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Applications by the parties for further directions – whether departure by HMRC unilaterally from the timetable for preparation for the appeal set down in agreed directions, causing additional . .
At FTTTxEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Jun-2011
FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special . .
See AlsoEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 20-Apr-2012
FTTTx Income tax – limited liability partnership acquired licence to film rights and sub-licensed rights to distributor – complex financing arrangements involving loans to members of the partnership and . .
See AlsoHM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp UTTC 22-Mar-2013
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying . .

Cited by:
See AlsoEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v HM Revenue and Customs CA 17-Feb-2015
Appeal against closure notice. . .
At CAEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The issue raised on this appeal concerns the extent to which the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to make an order for costs is fettered by the provisions of the Rules regulating the procedure of the Tribunal.
Held: With one exception, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521622

The Bank of Ireland and Another v Philip Pank Partnership: TCC 12 Feb 2014

It is an irregularity for a costs budget to fail to set out the Statement of truth in full.

Stuart-Smith J
[2014] EWHC 284 (TCC)
Bailii
Cited by:
CitedAmerichem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd TCC 13-Jun-2014
americhem_rakemTCC0614
Complaint was made that a costs estimate had been signed not by a solicitor, but by a costs draftsman.
Held: The rules required the estimate to have been signed by a ‘senior legal representative’. A costs draftsman whose involvement in the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521246

Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust: QBD 5 Feb 2014

The court was asked whether, where a party loses mental capacity in the course of proceedings, such loss of capacity has the automatic and immediate effect of terminating their solicitor’s retainer. The Costs judge had held that, as a matter of law, a supervening incapacity even if intermittent, automatically frustrates and thereby terminates a contract of retainer.
Held: The Conditional Fee Agreement remained effective. The termination of a solicitor’s authority by reason of mental incapacity did not, in itself, frustrate the underlying contract of retainer.

Phillips J
[2014] EWHC 168 (QB), [2014] 2 Costs LR 320, (2014) 138 BMLR 30, [2014] 1 WLR 2683, [2014] 2 All ER 1104, [2014] WLR(D) 14
Bailii, WLRD
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 44(6)
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedLauritzen A/A v Wijsmuller BV;( ‘The Super Servant Two’) CA 12-Oct-1989
Bingham LJ discussed the nature of frustration of contract: ‘The essence of frustration is that it is caused by some unforeseen supervening event over which the parties to the contract have no control and for which they are therefore not . .
CitedBank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel and Co HL 12-Dec-1918
The defendant ship-owners contracted to lease the ship on charter to the plaintiffs. Before the term, the ship was requisitioned for the war effort. The plaintiffs did not exercise the contractual right given to them to cancel the charterparty. The . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromBlankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust CA 27-Jan-2015
This case concerns a claimant with fluctuating capacity to conduct legal proceedings. At a time when she had capacity, she retained a firm of solicitors under a conditional fee agreement. The issue was whether the CFA terminated automatically by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Health, Contract

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521121

HE v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 Nov 2013

Appeal against a costs order in an immigration case. The claimant, who is the appellant in judicial review proceedings, asserts that he was substantially successful in his claim and that therefore he ought to have recovered the costs of the action. The claimant says that the judge erred in principle in only awarding him a small proportion of those costs.

Jackson, Black LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1846
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs, Immigration

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521063

Tasleem v Beverley: CA 6 Nov 2013

The court was asked: ‘whether the court can award a claimant its costs of what are known as costs-only proceedings brought under CPR Part 8 in accordance with the procedure set out in CPR rule 44.12A where a default costs certificate has been obtained, as the claimants contend; or is a claimant in those circumstances limited to the amount of the costs specified in the default costs certificate, as the respondents contend? Is the default costs certificate the end of the matter, in other words.’

[2013] EWCA Civ 1805, [2014] CP Rep 25, [2014] 1 WLR 3567, [2014] WLR(D) 106, [2014] 4 Costs LO 551
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521065

Walker Construction (UK) Ltd v Quayside Homes Ltd and Another: CA 7 Feb 2014

Laws, McFarlane, Gloster LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 93, [2014] 1 CLC 121
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Construction

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521054

Belgian Grain and Produce Co Ltd v Cox and Co (France) Ltd: CA 1919

Although the Court had jurisdiction, ‘it ought to be exercised with great caution, which indicates that there must be something exceptional in the facts to justify the making of the order’.

Bankes, LJ Warrington and Scrutton, Ljj
[1919] WN 317
England and Wales
Cited by:
ApprovedNykredit 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. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Costs

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.181342

Anderson v Cheltenham and Gloucester Plc: EAT 5 Dec 2013

EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Claimant failed to beat earlier Calderbank offer at remedy stage. Employment Tribunal made costs order against her limited to andpound;10,000. On consideration of EAT authorities, EAT concluded that ET had failed to take into account relevant factors. Having done so, costs order set aside and appeal allowed. – Observations made about setting off costs order against compensatory award.

Pdeter Clark J
[2013] UKEAT 0221 – 13 – 0512
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.520037

Excalibur Ventures Llc v Texas Keystone Inc and Others: ComC 13 Dec 2013

The claimant had pursued a very substantial claim against the defendant, but had failed at trial.
Held: It was not disputed that the claimant must pay the defendant’s costs. But the claimant was in effect a mere brass plate, and it had lost very clearly. The court now looked at the level at which costs should be paid.
Christopher Clarke LJ said:

Christopher Clarke LJ
[2013] EWHC 4278 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519999

Baker Tilly (A Firm) v Makar: QBD 27 Mar 2013

The claimant accountants had represented the defendant in a dispute with former employees. They sought payment of their costs, but the claim was stayed until the defendant had the opportunity to to seek representation by a MacKenzie friend after the taxing master became concerned for her health and as to her ability to conduct proceedings. They now appealed against that stay.
Held: Sir Raymond Jack saaid: ‘the Master put more weight on the incident of 18th July than it could bear and that he should have taken into account Miss Makar’s appearances before other judges. I also bear in mind that I have a more complete description of the incident than was before the Master. In all the circumstances he should not have concluded that it was established that Miss Makar lacked capacity and he should not have stayed the assessment pending the appointment of a litigation friend for Miss Makar. There is then no bar to Baker Tilly’s application for an interim costs certificate

Sir Raymond Jack
[2013] EWHC 759 (QB), [2013] 3 Costs LR 444
Bailii
Mental Capacity Act 2005 2, Civil Procedure Rules 21
Citing:
CitedCarmarthenshire County Council v Lewis CA 16-Dec-2010
Renewed application for leave to appeal against tenancy possession order. The respondent argued that as a result of his suffering Asperger’s syndrome, the court should have adjourned the proceedings to see whether he was a protected party in need of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice, Health

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519762

Bruce and Company v Ferguson: ScSf 23 Sep 2013

The Sheriff Principal, having resumed consideration of the cause, refuses the appeal; adheres to the sheriff’s interlocutors of 17 July 2012 and 6 September 2012; finds the appellants liable to the respondents in the expenses of the appeal and allows an account thereof to be given in and remitted to the Auditor of Court to report and tax; certifies the cause as suitable for the employment of junior counsel.

[2013] ScotSC 86
Bailii
Scotland

Costs

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.519255

Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2): SC 11 Dec 2013

The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to shredded tyres, and the applicants had mounted a sustained challenge. The applicants had not been granted legal aid, but initially had had had their costs liability capped. Following a loss at the House of Lords, their opponents submitted bill of nearly andpound;90,000.
Held: The liability of the appellants would be limited to andpound;25,000. This was the amount put forward as security for costs, and which was not opposed by the respondents. The court set out principles deriveable from the judgment at the ECJ: ‘i) First, the test is not purely subjective. The cost of proceedings must not exceed the financial resources of the person concerned nor ‘appear to be objectively unreasonable’, at least ‘in certain cases’. (The meaning of the latter qualification is not immediately obvious, but it may be better expressed in the German version ‘in Einzelfallen’, meaning simply ‘in individual cases’.) The justification is related to the objective of the relevant European legislation (referred to in para 32 of the judgment), which is to ensure that the public ‘plays an active role’ in protecting and improving the quality of the environment.
ii) The court did not give definitive guidance as to how to assess what is ‘objectively unreasonable’. In particular it did not in terms adopt Sullivan LJ’s suggested alternative of an ‘objective’ assessment based on the ability of an ‘ordinary’ member of the public to meet the potential liability for costs. While the court did not apparently reject that as a possible factor in the overall assessment, ‘exclusive’ reliance on the resources of an ‘average applicant’ was not appropriate, because it might have ‘little connection with the situation of the person concerned’.
iii) The court could also take into account what might be called the ‘merits’ of the case: that is, in the words of the court, ‘whether the claimant has a reasonable prospect of success, the importance of what is at stake for the claimant and for the protection of the environment, the complexity of the relevant law and procedure, the potentially frivolous nature of the claim at its various stages.’
iv) That the claimant has not in fact been deterred for carrying on the proceedings is not ‘in itself’ determinative.
v) The same criteria are to be applied on appeal as at first instance.’
Applying the principles, the amount of andpound;25,000 was neither subjectively nor objectively excessive.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Hope, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 78, [2014] 1 WLR 55, [2014] 3 Costs LO 319, [2014] 1 All ER 760, [2014] 2 CMLR 25, [2014] Env LR 17, UKSC 2010/0030
Bailii, Baillii Summary, SC Summary, SC
EIA Directive 85/337/EEC, IPPC Directive 96/61/EC, Council Directive 2003/35/EC 6
England and Wales
Citing:
At HLEdwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
SC ReferenceEdwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .
ECJ (Opinion)Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
ECJEuropean Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .
CitedRegina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Another, Ex Parte JC (A Child) CA 10-Aug-2000
The restrictions placed upon the maximum class sizes in turn restricted the rights of parents to appeal against refusal of a school place. It is for the parent to satisfy the original admissions committee and the appeal committee of the need for a . .
At First InstanceEdwards, Regina (on the Application Of) v Environment Agency and Another Admn 2-Apr-2004
The claimant challenged the granting of permission to a cement factory to change its energy systems to be operated by the burning of waste tyres. The respondent was concerned as to the standing of the claimant. He was impecunious, but associated . .
CitedDEB Deutsche Energiehandels-Und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland ECJ 22-Dec-2010
ECJ Effective judicial protection of rights derived from European Union law – Right of access to a court – Legal aid – National legislation refusing legal aid to legal persons in the absence of ‘public interest’ . .

Cited by:
At SC (2)European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 13-Feb-2014
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters – Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, European, Costs

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518898

Dunn v Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd: EAT 8 Oct 2013

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Abusive and threatening e-correspondence accompanied an application to an Employment Tribunal for unpaid wages, where the basis for claiming underpayment was never clearly set out, and when the matter was heard evidence as to how the employer had calculated payments was not challenged, although assertions were made by the Claimant’s representative in an unspecific manner about the propriety of the payments. The Employment Judge rejected the claims, and awarded costs. An appeal alleged that the EJ had behaved unprofessionally and was accompanied by abusive and threatening emails against the employer and its lawyers. Though giving a clear warning as to costs, HHJ Shanks allowed the claim to proceed so that the Respondents could respond to the allegations, and the EJ comment. After they had done, and some two weeks before the appeal, it was withdrawn. But the Respondent then asked for costs. The Claimant asked that this be considered at an oral hearing, for which she then failed to turn up though it was found she or her representative knew of it, and it was proper to proceed. The EAT was satisfied that the conduct came within rule 34A EAT rules, and that it ought to make an order, but moderated the amount within r.34B so as to be considerably less than claimed.

Langstaff P J
[2013] UKEAT 0392 – 12 – 0810
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518724

Hunt, Regina (on The Application of) v North Somerset Council: CA 21 Nov 2013

Reasons for costs order made on failure of the claimant’s applications.
Held: The respondent should be entitled to recover half of its costs of the appeal. Rimer LJ said that by the time that the appeal came on for hearing, it was far too late to consider granting any relief (by which he must have had in mind a quashing order), even if – as to which the court had doubts – it might have been appropriate for relief to be granted a year earlier when the matter was before Wyn Williams J: ‘In these circumstances, the court considers that it would be wrong in principle to award any costs to Mr Hunt. The appeal proved to be of no practical value to him; and, in the court’s view it was always one which was destined to fail.
6. As the council was the successful party in the appeal, the court considers that it is in principle entitled to its costs. On the other hand, the court has regard to the fact that the council resisted the appeal not only on the basis that this was not a case for relief, but also on the two substantive grounds on which it lost. Its resistance on those two grounds increased the costs of the appeal. We regard that consideration as pointing away from an order awarding the council all of its costs.’

Moore-Bick, Rimer, Underhill LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1483
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromHunt v North Somerset Council Admn 18-Jul-2012
The claimant who required support from the Council for his ADHD disorder challenged the respondent’s budget insofar as it limited support for children’s services in the Revenue Budget. Ge said that in making its decision to cut the budget, the . .
Main judgmentHunt, Regina (on The Application of) v North Somerset Council CA 6-Nov-2013
Appeal against an order dismissing the challenge by the appellant, to the lawfulness of the decision of the respondent, the Council to cut its Youth Services budget for the year 2012/2013. The claimant suffered ADHD and relied on services supported . .

Cited by:
Costs at CAHunt v North Somerset Council SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellant had sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent to approve a Revenue Budget for 2012/13 as to the provision of youth services. He applied for declarations that the respondent had failed to comply with section 149 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518319

Mynt Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Oct 2013

FTTTx COSTS – appellant unsuccessful before First-tier Tribunal – permission to appeal to Upper Tribunal obtained – appeal lodged but later withdrawn – whether appellant should pay respondents’ costs of First-tier Tribunal appeal – appeal begun before VAT and Duties Tribunal – no order in respect of costs or application of rules made on transfer to Tax Chamber – appeal not categorised – whether ‘old’ rules should apply – yes

[2013] UKFTT 635 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Costs

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.517727

Jones v Standard Life Employee Services Ltd: EAT 7 Aug 2013

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Constructive Dismissal – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
An application, made shortly before a Tribunal hearing was due, for disclosure of documents was rejected by the Tribunal. Several grounds were argued on appeal against that decision. Each was rejected. The Judge was held entitled to exercise his discretion as he did.

Langstaff P J
[2013] UKEAT 0023 – 13 – 0708
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517541

Aoun v Bahri and Another: ComC 6 Feb 2002

Application for security for costs against the claimant.

Moore-Bick, J
[2002] EWHC 29 (Commercial), [2002] 3 All ER 182
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromMohamad Ali Aoun v Hassan Bahri, Costas Angelou CA 31-Jul-2002
The claimant wanted to appeal an order to pay the defendants’ costs already ordered, and to provide security for costs of the remaining action. The defendants requested security for the costs of the appeal. Throughout the matter the claimant had . .
CitedHarris v Wallis ChD 10-Mar-2006
The claimant sought his profit share from a partnership. The defendant complained that the claimant had for some time put his assets beyond reach, and obtained an order for security for costs. The claimant now appealed.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.171170

Ackerman v Ackerman and Others: ChD 12 Aug 2011

The parties disputed the division of assets within a group of companies.

Roth J
[2011] EWHC 2183 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.442740

Radu v Houston and Another: CA 30 Oct 2006

Waller LJ doubted whether it was appropriate to make an order in the unless form. An order for security is intended to give a claimant a choice as to whether they put up security and continue with their action or withdraw the claim. That choice is meant to be a proper choice. An order to raise a large sum of money should not be made subject to the unless sanction until the claimant has been given a real opportunity to find the money. Waller LJ considered it preferable to adopt instead the practice of the Commercial Court. There, orders for security do not usually provide for the claim to be struck out without further order. Instead, the other party is given liberty to apply to the court in the event of default. This enables the court to put the paying party to their election to pay or not to pay, and then if appropriate to dismiss the claim.
Waller LJ was clear that if an unless order was made, the period for complying with it should be generous. He stated: ‘The making of an order for security is not intended to be a weapon by which a defendant can obtain a speedy summary judgment without a trial.’

Waller LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1700
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.247421

Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd: CA 1973

The court exercises a full discretion when ordering security for costs.
Where a plaintiff who is ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction has no assets within it, he or she may still yet convince the court against ordering security for costs if he or she were able to show that the application was being used oppressively so as to stifle a genuine claim, and the Court ‘would also consider whether the company’s want of means has been brought about by any conduct by the defendants’.
Lord Denning MR set out some of the matters which the court might, in an appropriate case, take into account in deciding whether, and if so, how, to exercise its discretion: ‘Such as whether the company’s claim is bona fide and not a sham, and whether the company has a reasonably good prospect of success . . whether there is an admission by the defendants on the pleadings or elsewhere that money is due . . whether the application for security was being used oppressively – so as to try to stifle a genuine claim . . whether the company’s want of means has been brought about by any conduct by the defendants, such as delay in payment or delay in doing their part of the work.’

Lord Denning MR
[1973] QB 609, [1973] 2 All ER 273
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 . .
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.225881

Infinity Distribution Ltd v The Khan Partnership Llp: CA 20 Apr 2021

Appeal raising a question on the form of security for costs to be provided where the Court is satisfied that it is an appropriate case to order security.
Held: The gateway conditions for an order for security of costs are matters of fact, not discretion

[2021] EWCA Civ 565
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.661942

Re S (A Child): SC 25 Mar 2015

The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the Court of Appeal against care and placement orders made in a county court. The LA now appealed against an order for it to pay costs.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In the absence of some suggestion of bad or reprehensible behaviour by the Local Authority, the standard rule as to the non availability of costs in such cases should be followed. There are differences between trials and appeals. ‘At first instance, ‘nobody knows what the judge is going to find’, whereas on appeal the factual findings are known. Not only that, the judge’s reasons are known. Both parties have an opportunity to ‘take stock’ and consider whether they should proceed to advance or resist an appeal and to negotiate on the basis of what they now know. So it may well be that conduct which was reasonable at first instance is no longer reasonable on appeal. But in my view that does not alter the principles to be applied: it merely alters the application of those principles to the circumstances of the case.’

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2015] UKSC 20, [2015] WLR(D) 163, [2015] 2 All ER 778, [2015] 1 WLR 1631, [2015] 1 FCR 549, [2015] Fam Law 513, UKSC 2014/0101, [2015] 2 FLR 208
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
CitedRe B-S (Children) CA 17-Sep-2013
The mother had been refused leave to oppose her child’s adoption. She now appealed.
Held: A court facing such an application faced two questions: Has there been a change in circumstances? If not, that is the end of the matter. If yes, then the . .
Appeal fromRe S (Children) CA 28-Feb-2014
F appealed against a placement order in respect of his daughter. The court was asked whether the judgment had been based upon proper evidence and reasoned sufficiently.
Held: The appeal was allowed, an interim care order is substituted in . .
CitedGojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2) CA 1-Apr-1991
In ancillary relief proceedings, the husband had not made frank disclosure of his assets. The final Calderbank offer of andpound;600,000 was made only the day before the substantive hearing. The offer was rejected. The judge awarded the wife a lump . .
CitedLondon Borough of Sutton v Davis (Costs) (No 2) 1994
In cases involving children costs awarded against one parent or another are exceptional since the court is anxious to avoid the situation where a parent may feel ‘punished’ by the other parent which will reduce co-operation between them. This will . .
CitedKeller v Keller and Legal Aid Board CA 21-Oct-1994
The standard practice of not awarding costs in children cases overrides the possibility of making a hardship order from Landlord. Costs orders are unusual in custody disputes and no order was to be made against the Legal Aid Board in favour of an . .
CitedG v E and Others FD 21-Dec-2010
(Court of Protection) Baker J awarded costs against a local authority which had been guilty of misconduct which, he held, justified departure from the general rule. He observed: ‘Parties should be free to bring personal welfare issues to the Court . .

Cited by:
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.544727

Greenwich Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and Others: ChD 13 Apr 1999

It is permissible for a court to order security for costs to be paid against a plaintiff limited company incorporated out of the jurisdiction, provided it appeared just to do so. There is no need to satisfy the apparent requirements of the Companies Acts.
Residence in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man will satisfy the condition of foreign residence.

Times 13-Apr-1999, Gazette 06-May-1999, [1999] 2 Lloyds Rep 308
Companies Act 1985 726, Rules of the Supreme Court Order 23 r 1(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.81018

Rubin v Rubin: FD 10 Mar 2014

The court heard an application by the wife for a legal services payment order.

Mostyn J
[2014] EWHC 611 (Fam)
Bailii
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedTL v ML and others FD 9-Dec-2005
. .
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 . .
CitedMakarskaya v Korchagin FD 21-Jun-2013
. .

Cited by:
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.522292

TL v ML and others: FD 9 Dec 2005

[2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRubin v Rubin FD 10-Mar-2014
The court heard an application by the wife for a legal services payment order. . .
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.279014

Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd: 1987

When considering an application for security for costs against a litigant resident in the EU, the courts must allow for the new additional scope for enforcement of any judgment under the 1982 Act. In this case, an order for security for costs against a plaintiff German company was refused because these additional powers made it unnecessary.
The court should not go into the merits of the claim in detail unless it can clearly be demonstrated that there is a high degree of probability of success or failure.

Brown-Wilkinson VC
[1987] 1 WLR 420, [1987] 1 All ER 1074
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982$ 2(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
ConsideredRaeburn v Andrews 1878
Security for costs . .

Cited by:
ReconsideredFitzgerald and Others v Williams and Others O’Regan and Others v Same CA 3-Jan-1996
Security for costs should not to be granted against an EC National in the absence of some particular difficulty. The Treaty required citizens of other states which were signatories of the convention. The importance of accurate evidence is . .
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 . .
CitedGolden Grove Estates Ltd v Chancerygate Asset Management Ltd ChD 30-Apr-2007
Application for security for costs. . .
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.182950

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

Whether threshold conditions met for grant of order for security for costs.

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.571219

Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions: CA 1995

The court set out the principles to be applied by the court upon an application for security for costs.
1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
2. The possibility or probability that the plaintiff company will be deterred from pursuing its claim by an order for security is not without more a sufficient reason for not ordering security. It is implicit that a company may have difficulty meeting an order.
3. The court must balance the injustice to the plaintiff prevented from pursuing a proper claim against the injustice to the defendant if no security is ordered and at the trial the plaintiff’s claim fails and the defendant finds himself unable to recover his costs. The power must neither be used for oppression by stifling a claim particularly when the failure to meet that claim might in itself have been a material cause of the plaintiff’s impecuniosity, nor as a weapon for the impecunious company to put pressure on a more prosperous company.
4. The court will look to the prospects of success, but not go into the merits in detail.
5. In setting the amount it can order any amount up to the full amount claimed by way of security, provided that it is more than a simply nominal amount; it is not bound to make an order of a substantial amount.
6. Before refusing security the court must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the claim would be stifled. This might be inferred without direct evidence, but the court should also allow that external resources might be available.
7. The lateness of the application can properly be taken into account.
Peter Gibson LJ: ‘The court will properly be concerned not to allow the power to order security to be used as an instrument of oppression such as by stifling a genuine claim by an indigent company against a more prosperous company. But it will also be concerned not to be so reluctant to order security that it becomes a weapon whereby the impecunious company can use its inability to pay costs as a means of putting unfair pressure on the more prosperous company’.
And ”Before the court refuses to order security on the ground that it would unfairly stifle a valid claim, the court must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is probable that a claim would be stifled . . the court should consider not only whether the plaintiff company can provide security either from its own resources to continue the litigation, but also whether it can raise the money needed from its directors, shareholders or other backers or interested investors. As this is likely to be peculiarly within the knowledge of the plaintiff company, it is for the plaintiff to satisfy the court that it would be prevented by an order for security from continuing the litigation.’

Peter Gibson LJ
[1995] 3 All ER 534
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedFarrer v Lacy, Hartland and Co 1885
The court will seek not to allow the power to order security for costs to be used as an instrument of oppression, by stifling a genuine claim by an indigent company against a more prosperous company, particularly when the failure to meet that claim . .
CitedOkotcha 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. . .
CitedRoburn 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. . .
CitedSir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd CA 1973
The court exercises a full discretion when ordering security for costs.
Where a plaintiff who is ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction has no assets within it, he or she may still yet convince the court against ordering security for costs if . .
CitedTrident International Freight Services Ltd v Manchester Ship Canal Co 1990
There was evidence that the plaintiff was no longer trading, and that it had previously received support from another company which was a creditor of the plaintiff company and therefore had an interest in the plaintiff’s claim continuing. The court . .
CitedPorzelack 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 . .
CitedPearson v Naydler 1977
That the statute required it to be likely that a company might find it difficult to pay costs before allowing a requirement for security for costs, indicated that an order may be expected to cause difficulty. However the court will not allow an . .

Cited by:
AppliedDanemark 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 . .
CitedAl-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
CitedAl-Koronky and Another v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another CA 28-Jul-2006
The claimants sought damages after publication of articles alleging severe mistreatment of a servant. One defendant had settled and apologised, but the defendant publisher and author had persisted with the allegation. The claimants who lived in . .
CitedSpy Academy Ltd v Sakar International Inc CA 23-Jul-2009
Claimant’s appeal against order for security for costs. An order had been returned having been sent to the correct address, but to the wrong person, it was returned. On the claimant appearing by its director the judge made the order.
Held: The . .
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.183481

Chernukhin and Others v Danilina: CA 30 Jul 2018

Unusual appeal concerning the quantum of security for costs ordered.

Longmore, Hamblen LJJ, Sir Stephen Richards
[2018] EWCA Civ 1802, [2018] WLR(D) 492, [2019] 1 WLR 758, [2018] 4 Costs LR 859
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.620458

In re C (Children) (Family Proceedings: Case Management): CA 12 Oct 2012

The court has a general power summarily to dismiss a meritless claim for security for costs in a family case.

Lord Justice Munby
[2013] 1 FLR 1089, [2012] EWCA Civ 1489
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.669927

SS v MCP (No 2): FD 3 Nov 2021

Children – Custody rights – Jurisdiction – Allegation that mother wrongfully removing child born in England to India
As to an application for security for costs, ‘It is clear from the judgment of Moylan LJ in Re M that the burden of surmounting the substantive threshold falls on the applicant. He has to show that there are circumstances here which are sufficiently compelling to require or make it necessary that the court should exercise its protective jurisdiction. The burden is to demonstrate that a crisis has erupted and that in consequence the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, serious harm, of the type, as Sir James Munby P suggested, that would engage articles 2 or 3 (i.e. a threat to life or of inhuman or degrading treatment). In Re M (Wardship: Jurisdiction and Powers) [2015] EWHC 1433, the President stated that he did not need to consider whether the jurisdiction would be exercisable where the risk to the child is of harm falling short of harm of the type that would engage Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention. In my judgment, if Moylan LJ’s substantive threshold is not to be robbed of meaningful content, the bar must be set at that level of harm. That level is not positioned at the ‘very extreme end of the spectrum’ (see Re M at [105]) but rather at a point which rightly reflects the criteria of caution, circumspection and necessity. It also gives effect to the key underlying principle that the jurisdiction is protective in nature to be exercised in a supporting, residual role (ibid at [107]).’

Mr Justice Mostyn
[2021] EWHC 2898 (Fam), [2021] WLR(D) 558
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.669926

MG v AR: FD 16 Nov 2021

Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits

Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by considering the merits that a view can be taken of the likelihood of an award of costs in favour of the respondent. This is because the default regime in family cases is no order as to costs. This is so whether the claim is about children or about financial remedies.

Mr Justice Mostyn
[2021] EWHC 3063 (Fam)
Bailii
Family Proceedings Rules 20.6 20.7
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPray And Others v Edie 29-May-1786
The lessor of the plaintiff in an action of ejectment, being resident abroad, was required to give security for costs. . .
CitedGreenwich Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and Others ChD 13-Apr-1999
It is permissible for a court to order security for costs to be paid against a plaintiff limited company incorporated out of the jurisdiction, provided it appeared just to do so. There is no need to satisfy the apparent requirements of the Companies . .
CitedAoun v Bahri and Another ComC 6-Feb-2002
Application for security for costs against the claimant. . .
CitedInfinity Distribution Ltd v The Khan Partnership Llp CA 20-Apr-2021
Appeal raising a question on the form of security for costs to be provided where the Court is satisfied that it is an appropriate case to order security.
Held: The gateway conditions for an order for security of costs are matters of fact, not . .
CitedAckerman v Ackerman and Others ChD 12-Aug-2011
The parties disputed the division of assets within a group of companies. . .
CitedPorzelack 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 . .
CitedRe S (A Child) SC 25-Mar-2015
The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the . .
CitedAutoweld Systems Ltd v Kito Enterprises Llc CA 17-Dec-2010
In the civil sphere a claim for security for costs is invariably made in a costs-follow-the-event regime. Black LJ stated: ‘it must be borne in mind that the design of the rules is to protect a defendant (or a claimant placed in a similar position . .
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 . .
CitedTL v ML and others FD 9-Dec-2005
. .
CitedChernukhin and Others v Danilina CA 30-Jul-2018
Unusual appeal concerning the quantum of security for costs ordered. . .
CitedBestfort Developments Llp and Others v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Others CA 8-Nov-2016
Whether threshold conditions met for grant of order for security for costs. . .
CitedSS v MCP (No 2) FD 3-Nov-2021
Children – Custody rights – Jurisdiction – Allegation that mother wrongfully removing child born in England to India
As to an application for security for costs, ‘It is clear from the judgment of Moylan LJ in Re M that the burden of surmounting . .
CitedRadu v Houston and Another CA 30-Oct-2006
Waller LJ doubted whether it was appropriate to make an order in the unless form. An order for security is intended to give a claimant a choice as to whether they put up security and continue with their action or withdraw the claim. That choice is . .
CitedSir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd CA 1973
The court exercises a full discretion when ordering security for costs.
Where a plaintiff who is ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction has no assets within it, he or she may still yet convince the court against ordering security for costs if . .
CitedSZ v Birmingham City Council and Others FC 2-Mar-2021
Father’s application for contact with his children B, now aged 16 and S (known as K) aged 14. Both children are in the care of a local authority. B lives with the second respondent, the mother. K lives in a care home, but regularly visits his mother . .
CitedRubin v Rubin FD 10-Mar-2014
The court heard an application by the wife for a legal services payment order. . .
CitedIn re C (Children) (Family Proceedings: Case Management) CA 12-Oct-2012
The court has a general power summarily to dismiss a meritless claim for security for costs in a family case. . .
CitedTL v ML and others FD 9-Dec-2005
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.669924

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516372

Assaubayev and Others v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd: SCCO 26 Oct 2012

[2012] EWHC 90223 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoAssaubayev and Others v Michael Wilson and Partners, Ltd QBD 21-Mar-2014
. .
See AlsoAssaubayev and Others v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd CA 20-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the judge was wrong to stay a claim by which the Appellants challenged the entitlement of the Respondent to recover legal fees in circumstances where, as they contend, the Court itself has and should exercise its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516378

Practice Direction On Costs In Criminal Proceedings: CACD 3 Oct 2013

John Thomas, Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd LCJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 1632, [2013] 1 WLR 3255
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoCriminal Practice Directions CACD 3-Oct-2013
. .

Cited by:
CitedVirgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 11-Sep-2014
Virgin had successfully taken a private prosecution against the defendants for copyright infringement. They sought an order for their costs to be paid from central funds. On taking confiscation proceedings, costs were now sought against the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516268

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 1 Aug 2013

The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him to discuss budgets and budgetary assumptions.
Held: The claimant had failed to deliver the required costs budget in time, and any costs in the action beyond the court fees would be disallowed.

Master McLoud
[2013] EWHC 2355 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
See AlsoMitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Mar-2014
Application for discovery of documents held by a third party, the Police Complaints Commission) in a defamation action. . .
See AlsoMitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Jun-2014
. .
See AlsoMitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Jul-2014
The claimant MP had a bad tempered altercation with police officers outside Downing Street. He sued the defendant newspaper in defamation saying that they had falsely accused him of calling te officers ‘plebs’. One officer now sued the MP saying . .
See AlsoMitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Oct-2014
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant. In the second action, the policeman claimant alleged defamation by the first claimant. The court heard applications as to the admission of expert evidence, and as to the inclusion or otherwise of . .
See AlsoMitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited QBD 27-Nov-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516223

Curzon v Hobbs and Others: UTLC 10 Sep 2013

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – late withdrawal of appeal – non-disclosure of facts rendering appeal redundant – costs – Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal)(Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, rule 10(3)(b)

Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President
[2012] UKUT 419 (LC)
Bailii
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal)(Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 10(3)(b)
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516024

Redwing Construction Ltd v Wishart: TCC 17 Jan 2011

The court considered certain issues about Conditional Fee Agreements (‘CFAs’) and After the Event Insurance (‘ATE Insurance’) and the extent and scope of their recovery.

Akenhead J
[2011] EWHC 19 (TCC), [2011] BLR 186, [2011] Lloyd’s Rep IR 331, [2011] TCLR 5, [2011] CILL 2997, [2011] 15 EG 94
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.428290

Knight v Woore: 31 Jan 1837

Trespass. Justification under a right of way to carry water and goods. As to the water, verdict for Defendant ; to the goods, verdict for Plaintiff. Held, that Defendant had substantially succeeded, and was entitled to the general costs in the cause.
Held also, that he was entitled to the costs of a witness who spoke as to the water, notwithstanding he spoke also as to the goods.

[1837] EngR 466, (1837) 3 Bing NC 534, (1837) 132 ER 516
Commonlii
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Costs

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.313583

European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland: ECJ 12 Sep 2013

ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition

Kokott AG
C-530/11, [2013] EUECJ C-530/11
Bailii
Directive 2003/35/EC
European
Citing:
See AlsoEdwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
ECJEuropean Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .
At SCEdwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .

Cited by:
OpinionEuropean Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 13-Feb-2014
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters – Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings . .
ECJEdwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
ECJEuropean Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .
ECJEdwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2) SC 11-Dec-2013
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Costs

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515250

Myers v Rothfield: CA 1938

The solicitor had left the conduct of proceedings largely to his managing clerk. The trial judge held that the solicitor had not been guilty of professional misconduct in allowing the defences to be delivered, but that he had been guilty of such misconduct in allowing the inadequate affidavits of documents to be made. He ordered the solicitor to pay one-third of the plaintiff’s costs of the action and two-thirds of the costs of the application.
Held: (MacKinnon LJ dissenting) Assuming that the acts in question, if done by a solicitor personally, would constitute professional misconduct on his part, the solicitor was not liable as he had appointed a fully qualified clerk to prepare the defences and affidavits of documents, and the acts had been done not by the solicitor himself but by the clerk.

Greer and Slesser LJJ, MacKinnon LJ
[1939] 1 KB 109, [1938] 3 All ER 498
Cited by:
Appeal fromMyers v Elman HL 1939
The solicitor had successfully appealed against an order for a contribution to the other party’s legal costs, after his clerk had filed statements in court which he knew to be misleading. The solicitor’s appeal had been successful.
Held: The . .
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

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.279002

Sinclair-Jones v Kay: CA 1988

The court was asked whether the costs of certain hearings should be paid by the solicitor or his client, and has regard to the solicitor’s responsibilities for the hearings going off.

[1989] 1 WLR 114, [1988] 2 All ER 611
Cited by:
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

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.279004

Edwards v Edwards: 1958

[1958] P 235, [1958] 2 WLR 956, [1958] 2 All ER 179
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.

Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.278999

Gupta v Comer: CA 1991

The plaintiff applied for an Order that costs be paid personally by the defendant’s solicitors on the basis that the solicitors had incurred such costs unreasonably and had failed to conduct the proceedings with reasonable competence and expedition. The solicitors objected to an Order being, saying that the Court had no jurisdiction to make such an Order unless serious dereliction of duty by the solicitor could be established.
Held: The solicitors’ appeal against an order that certain costs be paid personally by them failed, and the Order had been properly made even though the solicitors had not been guilty of serious dereliction of duty or gross negligence or neglect. The purpose of making a wasted costs order against a solicitor in pursuance of this rule is compensatory and not punitive.

[1991] 2 WLR 494, [1991] 1 QB 629, [1991] 1 All ER 289
England and Wales
Cited by:
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

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.279000

Mauroux v Sociedade Comercial Abel Pereira da Fonseca SARL: 1972

The jurisdiction to order a legal professional to pay costs is primarily compensatory. The jurisdiction should not be attracted merely because of the lawyer’s bona fide mistake or error of judgment.

[1972] 2 All ER 1085, [1972] 1 WLR 962
England and Wales
Cited by:
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

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.279001