Category: Costs

Factors (Sundries) Ltd v Miller: CA 1952

The tenant seeking and being granted forfeiture was legally aided and the court was precluded by statute from making an order for costs against him.
Held: There was nonetheless jurisdiction to require him to pay the landlord’s costs as a condition of being granted relief from forfeiture. A In a case where relief against forfeiture is granted, where appropriate it may be ordered that the tenant pay the landlord’s costs, even on a solicitor/client basis as a condition of relief.
Somervell LJ explained that the liability under such a condition was ‘not an order to pay costs in the ordinary sense’, but ‘a payment of a sum equal to the costs as a condition of relief’.

Judges:

Somervell LJ

Citations:

[1952] 2 All ER 630

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and Others SC 6-Mar-2013
Daejan owned the freehold of a block of apartments, managing it through an agency. The tenants were members of a resident’s association. The landlord wished to carry out works, but failed to complete the consultation requirements. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.471752

Mitchell and Others v James and Others: CA 12 Jul 2002

The defendant had made an offer including an offer that each party bear their own costs. A later action led to an order on better terms, and the claimant sought costs on an indemnity basis.
Held: The rules were generally incompatible with offers which included costs. Their purpose was to direct costs after a case and its issues had been considered by a judge, and such offers would offer opportunities for abuse. Whilst the rules did not prevent a party making an offer in whatever terms it chose, but equally nothing in rule 36.1(2) allowed a term as to costs as part of the offer for the purposes of obtaining indemnity costs.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Potter and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-2002, Gazette 19-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 997, [2004] 1 WLR 158, [2003] 2 All ER 1064

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36.21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ali Reza-Delta Transport Co Ltd v United Arab Shipping Co Sag CA 17-Jun-2003
The case had concluded. Offers of settlement had been made and the operative one included an offer on the interest payable. The court came to decide how the interest part of the offer was to be considered when assessing whether the judgment bettered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Costs

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.174441

Wells and Another v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council; Leeds City Council v Carr: QBD 12 Nov 1999

The Solicitors’ Practice Rules still prevent an agreement between a solicitor and a client for a contingency arrangement for the payment of fees in a criminal matter. Such an arrangement being unenforceable, no distinction is to be made where the solicitor did not propose to charge an additional success fee above his ordinary profit costs.

Citations:

Times 12-Nov-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.90370

Nicolson Highlandwear Ltd v Nicolson: EAT 23 Jun 2010

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Employment Tribunal refused to award expenses to Respondent notwithstanding having found that the Claimant’s dismissal was on account of what the Tribunal found could be described as his having defrauded the Respondent. On appeal, Tribunal’s decision set aside and a finding that the Respondent was entitled to an award of expenses substituted with the matter thereafter being remitted to a fresh Tribunal to determine the amount.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0058 – 09 – 2306, [2010] IRLR 859

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and Another EAT 8-Dec-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Discrimination claim withdrawn – Judge awards Rs 100% of their costs, not on the basis that the claim had been misconceived or unreasonably pursued from the start but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.421013

Hickman v Blake Lapthorn: QBD 17 Jan 2006

Judges:

Jack J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 12 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hickman v Lapthorn and Another QBD 16-Dec-2005
. .
Cited – Halsey 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Costs

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.238313

Brawley v Marczynski and Another: CA 21 Oct 2002

The defendants appealed an award of costs on an indemnity basis against them in the favour of a legally aided claimant.
Held: Indemnity costs were often intended to indicate disapproval of a party’s behaviour in an action, and were awarded in several and discretionary circumstances. It was not an objection of principle to say that a legally aided litigant would not recover the difference between standard and indemnity costs, and that therefore indemnity costs should not be awarded in favour of a legally aided claimant. Appeal refused.

Judges:

Aldous, Tuckey, Longmore LLJ

Citations:

[2003] 1 WLR 813, Times 07-Nov-2002, Gazette 09-Jan-2003, Gazette 16-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1453, [2003] 3 Costs LR 325, [2003] CP Rep 15, [2002] 4 All ER 1067, [2003] CPLR 241

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Frary v Frary CA 1993
A spouse’s wealthy cohabitant, who had been ordered to produce evidence not just as to the support provided by her (or him) to the spouse but as to her (or his) overall resources may be able successfully to invoke the courts jurisdiction to protect . .
Cited – Burgess v Burgess CA 11-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Kiam v MGN Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
Where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as excessive, a ‘proper’ award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury’s view, but the highest award which a jury could reasonably . .
Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sargeant, and Sargeant v Macepark (Whittlebury) Limited ChD 8-Jun-2004
The landlord granted the tenant a licence to make alterations to the property, but imposed conditions on the use to be made of the resulting premises. The tenant objected.
Held: The landlord was entitled when granting consent to take into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules, Legal Aid

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.177722

Leary v Leary: CA 1987

The husband had obstructed ancillary relief proceedings, leading to prolonged hearings. The judge ordered a gross sum in costs, without allowing the husband to be heard first.
Held: Under RSC Ord 62 r9(4) a judge could award a gross sum in lieu of taxed costs, and need not give any prior warning to the other party. The power was not subject to any formal limitation, but a judge must behave in a judicial manner. The judge here had acted within her powers and properly.

Citations:

[1987] 1 WLR 72

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Superceded – Q v Q (Family proceedings: Costs order) FD 21-Jun-2002
The provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules as to costs in Family division proceedings did not replace entirely the old rules after April 26, 1999, and the Leary case was not superceded. The requirement for summary assessment of costs for hearings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.181255

Candey Ltd v Crumpler and Another (Liquidators of Peak Hotels and Resorts Ltd): ChD 15 Feb 2019

Judges:

Andrew Hochhauser QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge

Citations:

[2019] Bus LR 1901, [2019] EWHC 282 (Ch), [2019] WLR(D) 130

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No 5 and Saving Provision) Order 2013, Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.640873

Andrews v Retro Computers Ltd: SCCO 16 Jan 2019

Application for partial or total disallowance of the Claimants’ costs pursuant to rule 44.11(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR); the Defendants allege ‘gross misconduct before and during the proceedings’.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC B2 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.641805

Williams v Jervis (Komatsu) (Costs Liability): QBD 30 Jul 2009

Judges:

Roderick Evans J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1837 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Williams v Jervis (Lex Komatsu) QBD 8-Oct-2008
The defendant drove into the rear of the claimant’s car, but the defendant later said that car did not have working tail lights and she was using her mobile phone. She alleged serious injury which was disputed.
Held: The claimant’s evidence . .

Cited by:

See Also – Williams v Jervis (Komatsu) (Hearing Costs) QBD 30-Jul-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.368663

Williams v Jervis (Komatsu) (Hearing Costs): QBD 30 Jul 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1838 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Williams v Jervis (Lex Komatsu) QBD 8-Oct-2008
The defendant drove into the rear of the claimant’s car, but the defendant later said that car did not have working tail lights and she was using her mobile phone. She alleged serious injury which was disputed.
Held: The claimant’s evidence . .
See Also – Williams v Jervis (Komatsu) (Costs Liability) QBD 30-Jul-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.368664

Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd and Others v Cable and Wireless Plc and Others: ChD 23 Apr 2010

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 888 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v AMEC Earth and Environmental (UK) Ltd TCC 14-Jun-2013
Following the proncipal judgment there were disputes as to the basis of assessment of costs and the interaction between the existing costs management order (which approved the defendant’s budget costs of andpound;264,708) and the total costs now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408668

Wilson v Ashford Borough Council: Admn 9 Mar 2010

The defendant appealed against an order for costs made against her after service and enforcement of an abatement notice with respect to an audible intruder alarm at her premises. She had first lodged an appeal to the Crown Court, but argued that having abandoned it more than three days before the hearing it had been wrong to make the costs order.
Held: The appeal failed. The Crown Court rule providing agaoinst the making of a costs order where the appeal was abandoned was subject expressly to the power givenn to the Magistrates under section 109. ‘The Magistrates were bound to consider the application for costs under section 109 on its merits and in my judgment were right to reject the submission that legitimate expectation or abuse of process should have caused them to reject the application in limine.’

Judges:

Leveson LJ, Cranston J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 639 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 109, Crown Court Rules 11 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Crown Court at Knightsbridge ex parte Commission of Custom and Excise QBD 1986
The defendant had appealed against his conviction to the Crown Court, but then given notice under rule 11 of his abandonment of the appeal. A few months later a Crown Court judge allowed an application for its re-instatement.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Local Government

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408635

Higgins v Ministry of Defence: QBD 30 Mar 2010

The defendant appealed against a costs assessment, complaining that the claimant should have brought his case using a firm local to him and not one from the city, and the costs officer finding that had a local solicitor been used the costs overall would have been similar.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 654 (QB), [2010] 6 Costs LR 867

Links:

Bailii

Costs

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.406645

Silvera v Bray Walker Solicitors (A Firm) and Another: CA 29 Mar 2010

The defendant sought to appeal against orders for him to pay to his former solicitors sums for litigation undertaken by them under conditional fee agreements.

Judges:

Pill, Wilson, Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 332, [2010] 4 Costs LR 584

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 (S.I.2000/692)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.406537

RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh and Co KG: CA 12 Feb 2009

Costs Judgment

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 26

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh and Co Kg (UK Productions) TCC 16-May-2008
The parties had gone ahead in performing the contract for the supply of machinery for manufacturing yoghurt pots, despite not having concluded formal agreements. . .

Cited by:

Costs Judgment – RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh and Co KG CA 12-Feb-2009
The parties went ahead with performance of a contract or the provision of a substantial production line without formally completing negotiation of the contract. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.406533

Collins v Godefroy: KBD 1831

An attorney, who has attended on subpoena as a witness in a civil suit, cannot maintain an action against the party who subpoenaed him, for compensation for loss of time.

Judges:

Lord Tenterden CJ

Citations:

[1831] EWHC KB J18, [1831] 109 ER 1040, (1831) 1 B and Ad 950

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.264572

Filmlab Systems International Ltd and Another v Pennington and Others: ChD 9 Jul 1993

In civil litigation an application for a wasted costs order should only save in exceptional circumstances, be made after the trial. The court mentioned several dangers if applications were made at an interlocutory stage, among them the risk that a party’s advisers might feel they could no longer act, so that the party could in effect be deprived of the advisers of his choice.

Judges:

Aldous J

Citations:

Times 09-Jul-1993, [1994] 4 All ER Ch D 673

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – White v White (Deceased) CA 20-Jan-2003
An appeal was made against an order refusing an award of costs against solicitors for the opposing party.
Held: The judge’s order saying that an aplication should have been forewarned earlier was made within his discretion, and was . .
Cited – Ridehalgh 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.

Litigation Practice, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.80522

Bentley-Thomas v Winkfield Parish Council: Admn 5 Feb 2013

The appellant challenged an order to pay over andpound;18,000 costs after losing her complaint of statutory nuisance against the Parish Council. She had complained as to the noise coming from a playground.
Held: She had brought the proceedings knowing of several reasons making her action inappropriate and unnecessary. However, she had followed proper procedures, the case had an evidential basis, supported by expert evidence, and ‘this prosecution cannot be described as having been, at the outset and in the way that it was pursued, so self-evidently lacking in merit that the case should not have been brought or, put otherwise, it was without any realistic prospect of success.’ The order was quashed.

Judges:

Goldring LJ, Fulford J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 356 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 82(1), Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 3, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Denning 1991
Nolan LJ considered the test for whether proceedings had been begiun ‘unnecessarily or improperly’so as to decide the question of costs awards in Magistrates proceedings, saying: ‘I would add in this connection that the word ‘improper’ in this . .
Cited – Suffolk County Council v Rexmore Wholesale Service Limited Admn 1994
A costs order had been made against the prosecution, who now appealed.
Held: It was necessary to look at the relevant decisions at the point the proceedings were instituted rather than applying a level of knowledge gathered later: ‘With the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Nuisance, Costs

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.472494

Compton, Regina (on the Application of) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust: Admn 26 Nov 2007

Applicaton for protective costs order. The court considered the report of a working group on such orders which said that to be suitable for a PCO a case must be a ‘public interest case’, but found it difficult to define what sort of case fell within the definition a ‘public interest case’ and what did not. It settled on ‘A public interest case is one where:
i) the issues raised are ones of general public importance, and
(ii) the public interest requires that those issues should be resolved.
The Group agreed that the definition should be given a broad, purposive interpretation. The definition should not be allowed to become unduly restrictive.’
Smith LJ said: ‘It seems to me as a matter of common sense, justice and proportionality that when exercising his discretion as to whether to make an order and if so what order, the judge should take account of the fullness of the extent to which the applicant has satisfied the five Corner House requirements. Where the issues to be raised are of the first rank of general public importance and there are compelling public interest reasons for them to be resolved, it may well be appropriate for the judge to make the strongest of orders, if the financial circumstances of the parties warrant it. But where the issues are of a lower order of general public importance and/or the public interest in resolution is less than compelling, a more modest order may still be open to the judge and a proportionate response to the circumstances.’

Judges:

Waller, Buxton and Smith LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2769 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp CA 4-Nov-2008
The court considered an application for a protective costs order in judicial review proceedings in environmental law cases.
Held: The central decision was Corner House Research, but that was to be applied purposively and not rigidly. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.271174

Phyllis Trading Ltd v 86 Lordship Road Ltd: CA 19 Feb 2001

‘A short question in relation to the award of costs on an appeal to the Lands Tribunal from the determination by a leasehold valuation tribunal of the price payable on enfranchisement. The question has arisen in circumstances that the landlord has succeeded on the appeal to the Lands Tribunal but (i) the landlord had rejected a Calderbank offer by the purchaser to pay a price which was higher than that determined by the valuation tribunal; (ii) the price offered was higher, also, than that which, in the event, was determined by the Lands Tribunal, and (iii) the offer did not include any term as to the payment of the landlord’s costs of the appeal. The question could equally have arisen where, in comparable circumstances, the purchaser had rejected an offer by the landlord to accept a price lower than that which, in the event, was determined by the Lands Tribunal.’

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 350, [2001] 28 EG 147, (2001) 82 P and CR 30, (2001) 82 P and CR DG8, [2001] 2 EGLR 85

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.218010

Regina (Leach) v Commissioner for Local Administration: QBD 2 Aug 2001

The new rules now required a respondent to an application for judicial review, to prepare and file an acknowledgement of service. Where he was successful in defending, or resisting the application for leave, there is no reason in principle why he should not be allowed to recover from the applicant, the costs of steps he had been obliged to undertake by the applicant.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 445

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mount Cook Land Ltd and Another v Westminster City Council CA 14-Oct-2003
The applicants had sought judicial review of the defendant’s grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former CandA building in Oxford Street. Though the application for leave to apply had been successful, and a full hearing took . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.136158

Tugushev v Orlov and Others: ComC 14 Dec 2018

Defendant’s application for security for costs.

Judges:

Mrs Justice Carr

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3471 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Tugushev v Orlov and Others ComC 27-Mar-2019
.
Held: Challenge to jurisdiction rejected. . .
See Also – Tugushev v Orlov and Others (No 2) ComC 26-Jul-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.631434

Webster and Others v The Ridgeway Foundation School: QBD 2 Mar 2010

The court considered whether costs should be payable on a standard or indemnity basis.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 318 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Webster and Others v The Governors of the Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 21-May-2009
The first claimant had been severely beaten as he left school. He and his parents also claimed post traumatic stress. They alleged that the school had been negligent in having allowed racial tensions to develop. The claimant was white, and his . .
See Also – Webster and Others v Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 5-Feb-2010
The claimant had been severely injured when attacked at school. He was a white youth, and his attackers all Asian. The school had a history of inter-racial tension, and he claimed in negligence, and that they had failed to protect his human right . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401980

Zabihi v Janzemini: ChD 7 Dec 2009

Application by the claimant seeking, in substance, to contest the validity of an assignment of costs rights from the second defendant to the first defendant under an instrument of assignment; and, secondly, seeking an order that a sum of pounds 50,000 paid by the claimant into court to fortify a cross undertaking in damages given in respect of a freezing order obtained at an early stage in the litigation should be released from court back to the claimant, rather than remaining in court pending detailed assessment of costs.

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3471 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401902

O’Beirne v Hudson: CA 9 Feb 2010

The matter had been settled by a consent order providing for costs on a standard basis, however the costs judge had decided that the matter would if it had proceeded, have been allocated to the small claims track, and therefore limited his costs award accordingly.
Held: This was a consent order providing for costs to be assessed on the standard basis; the addition of the words reasonable added nothing to the order that costs were to be assessed on that basis. It followed that the costs judge was not free to rule that the costs would be assessed on the small claims track basis.

Judges:

Waller VP LJ, Hooper LJ, Etherton LJ, Hurst SCJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 52

Links:

Bailii, Times

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Drew v Whitbread CA 9-Feb-2010
The personal injury claimant sought to raise on taxation, matters not put to the trial judge when making the costs order. The personal injuries case had been allocated to the multi-track. The judge at trial had awarded costs on the standard basis, . .
Cited – L v L (Costs: Legal Aid Taxation) CA 26-Jan-1996
Solicitors hourly rates are not to be artificially reduced by use of averages. The judge had placed too much weight on artificially low average hourly rates.
Neill LJ considered recent cases and set out five propositions to be applied by the . .
Cited – Voice and Script International Ltd v Alghafar CA 8-May-2003
The court has a wide discretion whether to order the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis and the court of Appeal will rarely disturb the judge’s order as to costs.
Judge LJ said: ‘By treating the absence of allocation to track as . .

Cited by:

See Also – Drew v Whitbread CA 9-Feb-2010
The personal injury claimant sought to raise on taxation, matters not put to the trial judge when making the costs order. The personal injuries case had been allocated to the multi-track. The judge at trial had awarded costs on the standard basis, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396634

Halborg, Regina (on The Application of) v The Law Society: Admn 19 Jan 2010

The solicitor’s client had requested the solicitor to obtain a remuneration certificate from the Law Society.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 38 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974 56(2), Solicitors’ (Non-Contentious Business) Remuneration Order 1994 (SI 1994/2616)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392988

Actavis UK Ltd and Others v Eli Lilly and Company: CA 30 Jun 2015

Consideration of
i) The form of order for costs of the trial and the appeal;
ii) What should happen to the interim payment made by Lilly in the court below, and whether there should be an interim payment of any costs awarded under (i);
iii) Whether the order should recite the terms of a letter from Actavis’s solicitors dated 17 April 2013;
iv) Whether there should be permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Judges:

Longmore, Kitchin, Floyd LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 666

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Main Appeal – Actavis UK Ltd and Others v Eli Lilly and Company CA 25-Jun-2015
Lilly appealed against a finding that an Actavis drug had not infringed its patents to the limited extent of holding that there would be indirect infringement in four jurisdictions, but they agreed with the Judge that there would be no direct . .

Cited by:

Leave – Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others SC 12-Jul-2017
The issue raised on this appeal and cross-appeal is whether three products manufactured by Actavis would infringe a patent whose proprietor is Lilly, namely European Patent (UK) No 1 313 508, and its corresponding designations in France, Italy and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.631392

Goodwin v Bennetts UK Ltd (Costs): CA 11 Dec 2008

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke, Dyson, Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1658

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Judgment – Goodwin v Bennetts UK Ltd CA 11-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim for personal injury in the form of tenosynovitis from keyboard use. The judge had found the defendants not negligent. The claimant typed, but not intensively, and made a fairly small number of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Mole Valley District Council and Another Admn 15-Nov-2013
Decision after successful request for judicial review of decision to grant planning permission. The respondent and interested party resisted costs orders saying that the claimant had not been successful on all points.
Held: In general the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.426862

In re J (Children) (Costs of Fact-Finding Hearing): CA 26 Oct 2009

Mother and father disputed contact. The district judge held a fact finding hearing to resolve allegations of violence made by the mother and denied by the father. Most of the mother’s allegations were held to be established and she sought the costs of the hearing. The district judge refused her application and made no order as to costs. The mother appealed to the county court. She invited the judge to draw a distinction between the fact finding hearing and that part of the hearing that related to the welfare of the children. The judge declined to do so. He held that the father had not acted unreasonably in giving evidence in opposition to the mother and dismissed her appeal.
Held: The circuit judge had been wrong not to adopt a ‘compartmentalised’ approach. The husband had not acted irrationally and a proper exercise of the court’s discretion did not depend upon why he chose to deny allegations that he must have known were true.
Wilson LJ said: ‘The order for a bespoke fact-finding hearing was surely to consign the determination of the mother’s allegations into a separate compartment of the court’s determination of the father’s application for an order for contact. It went almost without saying, although the circuit judge chose to say it, that the optimum outcome of the contact application could be determined only by reference to the findings made at the fact-finding hearing; but the effect of the direction for a separate fact-finding hearing was that the costs incurred by the mother in relation to that hearing can confidently be seen to be wholly referable to her allegations against the father. There was, in that sense, a ring fence around that hearing and thus around the costs referable to it. Those costs did not relate to the paradigm situation to which the general proposition in favour of no order as to costs applies.’

Judges:

Ward, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1350, [2010] 1 FCR 135, [2010] Fam Law 234, [2010] 1 FLR 1893

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re T (A Child) CA 18-Nov-2010
Paternal grandparents appealed against a refusal to make an order for costs in their favour against the local authority. The refusal was made in the course of care proceedings brought by the local authority in relation to two grandchildren. The . .
Cited – In 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384356

National Westminster Bank v Kotonou: ChD 11 Dec 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3309 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – National Westminster Bank Plc v Kotonou and Another ChD 19-Jun-2006
. .
See Also – National Westminster Bank Plc v Kotonou CA 26-Feb-2007
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Kotonou v National Westminster Bank Plc ChD 5-Jul-2010
. .
See Also – Kotonou v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 30-Oct-2015
Appeal against summary dismissal of claim against the bank based on Henderson v Henderson.
Gloster LJ, commented on Buxton LJ’s observations in the Taylor Walton case: ‘Thus, in my view, what is required in the present case is ‘an intense focus . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384065

Sulaman v Axa Insurance Plc and Another: CA 11 Dec 2009

The insurance companies had believed the appellant and others had conspired to make fraudulent insurance claims in respect of manufactured road traffic accidents. The second defendant appealed against an order depriving her of all but a third of her costs.
Held: Her appeal succeeded (Sullivan J dissenting). The claimant’s own involvement in the fraud had been found to be minimal. It was generally very unhelpful to compare one case with another based on the factual details.

Judges:

Sedley, Longmore, Aikens LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1331, Times 25-Jan-2010, [2010] 3 Costs LR 391, [2010] CP Rep 19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383835

St Albans Girls’ School and Another v Neary: CA 20 Nov 2009

The amount of costs ordered under rule 41 should be governed by the same general principles as in the civil courts.

Judges:

Smith LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1214, [2010] 2 Costs LR 191

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Raggett v John Lewis Plc EAT 17-Aug-2012
raggett_lewisEAT2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
In determining the amount of costs to be awarded having decided that the bringing of an unfair dismissal claim was misconceived and that a costs order should be made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383833

In re MC Bacon Ltd (No2): ChD 1991

A claim was made by the liquidator for reimbursement, out of a fund in the hands of a secured creditor, of costs, which included costs the liquidator had been ordered to pay the secured creditor following the dismissal of the action in which he sought to invalidate the creditor’s security as a voidable preference.
Held: The action was dismissed when the liquidator called no evidence: ‘the expenses of realising or getting in the assets do not include the costs of an unsuccessful attempt to recover an asset’
Millett J observed that it would be ‘difficult to imagine anything more unjust’ than making the order sought.

Judges:

Millett J

Citations:

[1991] Ch 127, [1990] BCLC 607, [1990] BCC 430, [1990] 3 WLR 646

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insolvency

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.641433

Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd (Costs): CA 5 Mar 2015

Post judgment orders for costs and otherwise

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 177

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd ComC 20-Jun-2013
Claim by insurers for a declaration of non liability to which the insured responds seeking declarations that it is covered by the policy and entitled to have its associated defence costs paid. . .
See Also – Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd CA 5-Mar-2015
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.543887