Category: Costs

Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis: CA 24 Oct 2003

Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate for solicitors to make a separate charge based on value, provided always that one remembers that the solicitor is entitled only to what is fair and reasonable remuneration, taking all relevant factors into account. ‘ There are significant differences in the circumstances in which charges are made for contentious and non-contentious business and the approach to such charges can properly differ even though similar factors apply. It can be of assistance to clients to budget, to substitute an element of a value charge for uncertainty deriving from purely time based costs. Any scale should be regressive. The ultimate safeguard remains the costs judge’s duty to allow only such costs as are fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1476, Times 30-Oct-2003, [2003] NPC 126, [2004] 1 All ER 510, [2003] WTLR 1427, [2004] 1 Costs LR 66, [2004] 1 WLR 646

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974 56, The Solicitors (Non-Contentious Business) Remuneration Order 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Property and Reversionary Investment Corporation Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment 1975
In the context of a compulsory purchase of a central London building, the court commented on the various factors which the Order required to be taken into account. In relation to ‘the amount or value of any money or property involved’:- ‘This is an . .
Cited – Loveday v Renton (No 2) 1992
A brief fee might include work done during the course of a trial. The appropriateness of the approach and the need for elements to be calculated according to the value at stake and the hourly expense rate are to be calculated realistically. . .
Cited – Treasury Solicitor v Regester 1978
A challenge was made as to the legal costs on the grant of a lease of a valuable commercial property.
Held: In relation to the time spent on the business which was the third factor in the 1972 Order: ‘The magnetic attraction of factor (iii) as . .
Cited – Leopold Lazarus v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 1976
The general principle governing the calculation of costs rates should allow for two elements, the value of the subject matter or amount at stake, and the expense of providing the service. . .
Cited – Maltby v D J Freeman 1978
The court laid down guidance for solicitors in charging in the administration of estates: ‘when one comes to translate value into terms of the legal bill, the approach involves two ingrained habits of legal thought. There is nothing strictly logical . .
Cited – Regina v Wilkinson 1980
The court was attracted by the Law Society’s submission that the general principles that costs should reflect the amount at stake and the expense of providing the service, should govern also court attendances during litigation. The court identified . .
Cited – In re Eastwood 1980
The court identified two elements to make up a solicitor’s hourly rate in contentious matters. The expense of time and a percentage mark up applied to take account of amongst other matters the amount of any money or property involved.
Held: . .
Cited – Finley v Glaxo Laboratories 1989
Hobhouse J said: ‘I would not lend support to the adoption of an unduly low hourly rate and then seeking to put it right by applying a higher uplift percentage. The right approach is that which I have emphasised, namely to adopt a realistic approach . .
Cited – Johnson v Reed Corrugated Cases Ltd 1992
The costs principles set out in the Masters’ Practice Notes and which endorsed the dual approach of assessing and adding an element to reflect the value at stake in litigation as well as the hourly expense rate of providing that service in all . .
Appeal from – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Peter D’Arcy Liptrott Jo SCCO 12-Sep-2002
The applicant challenged a solicitor’s bill for the work in handling an estate. Two preliminary issues arose, as to the hourly rates applicable, and whether a value element should be charged. The court’s task is to assess a sum which is fair and . .
See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others CA 11-Mar-2005
The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Peter D’Arcy Liptrott Jo SCCO 12-Sep-2002
The applicant challenged a solicitor’s bill for the work in handling an estate. Two preliminary issues arose, as to the hourly rates applicable, and whether a value element should be charged. The court’s task is to assess a sum which is fair and . .
See Also – Jemma Trust Company Limited v Kippax Beaumont Lewis and others ChD 1-Apr-2004
. .
See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis and others CA 22-Nov-2004
The defendants asserted that they had executed a trust deed on the advice of senior counsel in conference. The judge said the notes of the meeting did not justify that conclusion. The firm sought permission to appeal.
Held: There was room for . .
See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others CA 11-Mar-2005
The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions, Wills and Probate

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.187085

Vandersteen (Executor of the Estate of Mcguinness, Dec’d) v Agius and Another: CA 29 Oct 1997

An appeal from a district judge on a taxation was by way of re-hearing; A County Court Judge was not restricted to following the discretion as exercised on the first hearing.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Oct-1997, Times 14-Nov-1997

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 62 r 28(5), County Court Rules 1981 Order 13 1(10)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.90124

Euroption Strategic Fund Ltd v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken Ab: ComC 30 Mar 2012

Judges:

Gloster J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 749 (Comm)

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: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.452392

Cunningham v Fegan and Another: QBNI 19 Feb 2015

‘The plaintiff applied in the county court for two orders. The first was an order for discovery by the defendants of documents containing the fee arrangements entered into between the defendants’ solicitor and the defendants’ insurance company. The second was for an order that the defendants’ notice of intention to defend should be struck out on the basis that the fee arrangement entered into between Campbell Fitzpatrick now BLM Solicitors and the defendants’ insurance company, Axa, was contrary to public policy.’

Judges:

Stephens J

Citations:

[2015] NIQB 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland, Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.544868

Capital Air v HMRC Cost Decision: UTTC 22 Dec 2010

UTTC COSTS – appeal in respect of case allocation – allocation to Complex case – whether jurisdiction to award costs in First-tier Tribunal – Yes exercise of discretion over costs in First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal – no award of cost.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT B26 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.428180

Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (In Receivership) v Koshy and Others: ChD 8 Feb 2000

A company could give several people the power to appoint a receiver in respect of different elements of its assets. If this was done there was no fundamental reason why such appointments should not be put in effect. The appointment of one receiver did not, in the absence of explicit limitations to the contrary exhaust the power to appoint receivers.

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-2000, Gazette 16-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (In Receivership) v Koshy and Others (No 2) ChD 30-Mar-2000
The new Civil Procedure Rules had not substantially affected the rules on costs following the event of a trial. The discretion in a judge as to the order for costs had been correctly stated in Elgindata, and approved in Phonographic Performance Ltd . .

Cited by:

See Also – Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (In Receivership) v Koshy and Others (No 2) ChD 30-Mar-2000
The new Civil Procedure Rules had not substantially affected the rules on costs following the event of a trial. The discretion in a judge as to the order for costs had been correctly stated in Elgindata, and approved in Phonographic Performance Ltd . .
Cited – Green and others v Gaul and Another; In re Loftus deceased ChD 18-Mar-2005
The claimants began an action in January 2003 to seek to set aside the appointment of an administrator from December 1991, and to have set aside transfers of property made within the estate.
Held: The limitation period against a personal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81095

Drummond v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 13 May 2016

UTTC PROCEDURE – COSTS – application by Respondents to set aside protective costs order in favour of Appellant – application granted – whether Upper Tribunal has power to make protective costs and costs capping orders – yes – procedure and criteria for protective costs and costs capping orders

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 221 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.567352

Nolan v Wright: CA 15 Oct 2009

Action for the recovery of a very large sum of money from the defendant borrower pursuant to an unregulated credit agreement and a legal charge. The defendant seeks to set aside the loan documentation as a sham or procured by undue influence or misrepresentation.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1131

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Costs, Limitation

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377533

Perrins v Holland and Others: ChD 21 Oct 2009

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2558 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Main judgment – Perrins v Holland and Another ChD 31-Jul-2009
The son of the deceased challenged the testamentary capacity of the testator and further claimed under the 1975 Act. The deceased was disabled and had substantial difficulty communicating.
Held: The will was validly made. Logically it is . .

Cited by:

Costs at First Instance – Perrins v Holland and Others; In re Perrins, deceased CA 21-Jul-2010
The testator had given instructions for his will and received a draft will. The judge had found that he had capacity to make the will when he gave instructions but not when it was executed. The will having been made in accordance with his . .
Appeal from – Perrins v Holland and Others; In re Perrins, deceased CA 21-Jul-2010
The testator had given instructions for his will and received a draft will. The judge had found that he had capacity to make the will when he gave instructions but not when it was executed. The will having been made in accordance with his . .
See Also – Perrins v Holland and Others CA 8-Dec-2010
The court heard an appeal as to costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377217

Cambridge City Council, Regina (On the Application of) v Alex Nestling Ltd: Admn 17 May 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1374 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376250

Forcelux Ltd v Binnie: CA 21 Oct 2009

Forcelux and Mr Binnie were the landlord and tenant of a flat in Lincoln. Under the lease, the tenant was obliged to pay ground rent and other charges. The lease contained a forfeiture provision in the event of non-payment of rent or charges. Mr Binnie fell into arrears and Forcelux obtained a default judgment against him. No payment was made following the judgment and so Forcelux served a notice on Mr Binnie under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and section 81 of the Housing Act 1996. There was no response to that notice and so Forcelux commenced proceedings for possession. By that time Forcelux had received no payment from Mr Binnie for over 2 years and had heard nothing from him for 12 months. The claim form gave an address for Mr Binnie as required by Rule 6.6 (2); it was the address of the flat. When the hearing date was fixed, the court attempted to serve the proceeding by post but the envelope was returned ‘Gone Away’. This was because, for some time passed, Mr Binnie had not been living in the flat. He was in fact then living with his girlfriend in another flat in the same building and had not collected any documents relating to the case from the flat.
The landlord appealed against the setting aside of his order for possession. The long residential lease provided for forfeiture for non-payment of ground rent or charges. The possession order was set aside and relief from forfeiture given on terms as to payment of arrears.
Held: Where the court makes a possession order in the absence of the tenant, following forfeiture of a lease for non payment of the ground rent, and the tenant subsequently applies to have the order set aside, the rule which is of relevance is CPR 3.1 (2). This is because, when the tenant does not appear at the hearing, there is no trial.
Warren J said: ‘Where a defendant does not appear at all, the test of the judge is entirely straight forward and routine once he is satisfied that service has been properly effected. He looks at the evidence and having no material which would suggest that the defendant has a case at all, let alone one which is genuinely disputed on grounds which appear to be substantial, he makes an order for possession.
I do not consider that such a process of determination and decision can sensibly be called a trial as a matter of the ordinary use of the word. Nor do I consider that it is being seen as a trial within Rule 39.3; the word is not to be given some special and wider meaning in the context of that Rule. Rather it can be seen more as a summary procedure in the sense of the procedure being carried out rapidly with the omission of most of the steps which in an ordinary case lead to trial it also has a lot in common with a disposal hearing as referred to in the PD Part 26 which I have already described, and which is clearly not a trial either in the ordinary sense of the word or in the context of the CPR’

Judges:

Ward, Jacob, Warren LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 854, [2010] CP Rep 7

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 146, Housing Act 1996 81, Civil Procedure Rules 39.3 55.5, County Court Act 1984 138

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another CA 4-May-2006
The defendants appealed a decision that they had no sufficient reason for not attending court on the day of the trial.
Held: The fact that the defendants had a continuing commercial relationship with the claimants was not enough to justify an . .
Cited – Nelson and Another v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd CA 22-Sep-2006
The defendant did not appear at the trial and now appealed the judgment. The claim form and court papers had been served by post at the wrong address. The question was whether a defendant wanting to set aside a judgment was required to persuade the . .
Cited – Regency Rolls Ltd and Another v Carnall CA 16-Oct-2000
The court considered what was meant by ‘act promptly’ in the Rule.
Held: Dictionary definitions were considered by both Arden LJ and Simon Brown LJ – ‘with alacrity’ or ‘all reasonable celerity in the circumstances’. The court no longer has a . .
Cited – McCann v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-May-2008
The applicant and his wife were secure joint tenants of a house of a local authority under section 82. Their marriage broke down, and the applicant’s wife moved out of the house with the two children of the marriage. She returned after obtaining a . .

Cited by:

See Also – Forcelux Ltd v Binnie CA 21-Oct-2009
. .
Cited – Pritchard and Others v Teitelbaum and Others ChD 20-Apr-2011
The claimants sought orders allowing them to re-enter the tenanted properties after eviction in order to allow them recover their possessions left behind. Proceedings for recovery of possession had continued over several years.
Held: The . .
Cited – Grimason v Cates QBD 26-Jul-2013
The claimant tenant appealed against frfeiture of her leas saying that she had not received any notices. The parties disputed whether the addresss was the usual or last known address, and also that the forfeiture gave the landlord an unjust . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376208

Eweida v British Airways plc: CA 16 Oct 2009

Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform.

Judges:

Kay, Lloyd, May LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1025

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Eweida v British Airways Plc EAT 20-Nov-2008
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
The claimant was a Christian who objected to BA’s policy of requiring jewellery to be worn concealed by the uniform. There were exceptions for those whose religions . .
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 – Goodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton and Another (No 2) CA 12-Oct-2005
The applicant intended to appeal refusal of her challenge to the verdict of the coroner. For the first time at appeal she sought a protective costs order.
Held: The Corner House case established that a request for a protective costs order . .
Cited – Regina (Bullmore) v West Hertfordshire NHS Trust 2007
. .
Cited – Morgan and Another v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd CA 2-Mar-2009
The claimants had alleged that smells from a composting site near their homes constituted a private nuisance. Following the discharge of an interim injunction, Judge Seymour ordered the claimants to pay the costs of the injunction proceedings. The . .
Cited – Compton, Regina (on the Application of) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust CA 1-Jul-2008
Appeals against protective costs orders. . .
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 . .

Cited by:

See Also (Costs) – Eweida v British Airways Plc CA 12-Feb-2010
The court was asked whether, by adopting a staff dress code which forbade the wearing of visible neck adornment and so prevented the appellant, a Christian, from wearing with her uniform a small, visible cross, British Airways (BA) indirectly . .
Cited – Austin and Others v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants appealed against refusal of a Group Litigation Order (GLO). Over 500 parties wished to claim in nuisance caused by open cast mining operations conducted by the defendants.
Held: The appeals failed. The making of a GLO is a matter . .
At CA (Costs) – Eweida And Chaplin v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2011
Statement of Facts and questions to the parties . .
At CA (Costs) – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Discrimination

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376169

Wallace and Another v Crossley and Another: CA 24 Jul 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 946

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Wallace and Another v Crossley and Another CA 2-Nov-2005
The defendants sought leave to appeal against an order acknowledging a drainage easement over their land. The easement of drainage was subject to a condition that it did not come to be a nuisance. It was found so to have become.
Held: The . .
See Also – Wallace and Another v Crossley and Another CA 10-Jul-2009
Appeal against refusal on stay of order for sale of house to pay costs after loss in litigation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375168

Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Peter D’Arcy Liptrott Jo: SCCO 12 Sep 2002

The applicant challenged a solicitor’s bill for the work in handling an estate. Two preliminary issues arose, as to the hourly rates applicable, and whether a value element should be charged. The court’s task is to assess a sum which is fair and reasonable.
Held: A rate above that generally charged by solicitors in the geographic area was justified where the practitioner was highly experienced and specialist. The claimant argued that a value element should no longer be paid. In view of the omnipresence of computer time recording systems, it is now wrong to charge on both a value element and a time element.

Judges:

Master Rodgers, Costs Judge

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 9008 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors (Non Contentious Business) Remuneration Order 1994 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jones and Another v Secretary of State for Wales and Another QBD 3-Dec-1996
Specialist provincial solicitors’ firm’s hourly cost rates were not limited by local average rates. . .
Appealed to – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA 24-Oct-2003
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA 24-Oct-2003
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.175484

Merlin Scientific Llp v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Feb 2016

PROCEDURE-COSTS – appeal in standard category-appellant’s application for costs on the basis that HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting proceedings under Rule 10 (1] (b) of Tribunal Rules-whether HMRC acted unreasonably in defending a point with no realistic prospect of success-no-application for costs dismissed

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 81 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.559933

Leeds City Council v Leeds District Magistrates and Another: Admn 11 Apr 2013

The court had allowed an appeal against a decision of the appellant’s licensing sub-committee refusing a Premises Licence. The Council now appealed against the award of costs, sayin that no reasons had been given.
Held: There were no findings of fact made which, applying the principles set out in the City of Bradford case and Perinpanathan, would have justified the costs order that was made. The appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1346 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth Admn 10-May-2000
Lord Bingham set out guidance in respect of costs awarded by magistrates pursuant to section 64(1) of the 1980 Act, saying: ‘I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised in three . .
Cited – Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Others CA 26-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the approach which should be taken by a Magistrates Court hearing an appeal from a decision under the 2003 Act.
Held: Before a Magistrates’ Court can interfere with the Sub-Committee’s decision, it must be satisfied . .
Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.510016

Hashem v Shayif and Another: FD 17 Apr 2009

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 864 (Fam), [2009] 1 FLR 115, [2009] 2 FLR 896, [2009] Fam Law 665

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .

Cited by:

See Also – Hashem v Shayif and Others CA 22-Jul-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Family

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.347350

Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: CA 24 Oct 1994

The Secretary of State was entitled to a costs order whether or not matter of principle had arisen in the course of a planning appeal.

Citations:

Ind Summary 24-Oct-1994, [1994] 64 PandCR 120

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Environment and Another QBD 7-Jan-1994
A Local Authority may not rely upon an unimplemented EC directive to make a claim, since it was not an individual. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Forrester v The Secretary Of State For The Environment And South Buckinghamshire District Council Admn 14-Mar-1997
The applicant appealed dismissal of his appeal against a planning enforcement notice issued by the respondent. He said the change had taken place more than ten years before the notice and so was immune to enforcement proceedings. An earlier decision . .
Cited – Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others No 2 HL 17-Jul-1995
The applicants had been successful in their appeal against a refusal of planning permission. The Secretary of State had awarded himself and the applicants their costs against the Council. The Council asked the House to give guidance on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Planning

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.90634

Willers v Joyce and Others: ChD 8 Aug 2019

Claim for malicious prosecution and abuse of process

Judges:

Rose DBE LJ

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2183 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 1) SC 20-Jul-2016
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.640894

Lam v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jan 2014

FTTTx Costs – HMRC withdrawing from appeal after receipt of new information – application by Appellant for award of costs of pounds 10,800 plus VAT – whether HMRC had acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the appeal – only for very short period between provision of new information and HMRC’s delayed decision to withdraw from the appeal – award of costs made in respect of that period, summarily assessed at pounds 150 – warning that in appropriate circumstances, withholding by an appellant of crucial information or evidence which later persuades HMRC to withdraw from the appeal might entitle HMRC to costs for the relevant period during which they are unnecessarily being put to the expense and effort of conducting the appeal

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 79 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Costs

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.521711

Naureen and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Salford City Council: CA 15 Jan 2013

Appeal by claimants in judicial review proceedings against the court’s refusal to award costs in their favour following settlement. The settlement was an agreement that the claimants would withdraw their claim, because of a change in circumstances.

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1795, (2013) 16 CCL Rep 21, [2013] 2 Costs LR 257

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Immigration

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.470743

Hill v Archbold: CA 1968

Denning LJ said: ‘Much maintenance is considered justifiable today which would in 1914 have been considered obnoxious. Most of the actions in our courts are supported by some association or other, or by the State itself. Comparatively a few litigants bring suits, or defend them at their own expense. Most claims by workmen against their employers are paid for by a trade union. Most defences of motorists are paid for by insurance companies. This is perfectly justifiable and is accepted by everyone as lawful, provided always that the one who supports the litigation, if it fails, pays the costs of the other side’.
Danckwerts LJ said: ‘the law of maintenance depends upon the question of public policy, and public policy . . is not a fixed and immutable matter. It is a conception which, if it has any sense at all, must be alterable by the passage of time.’

Judges:

Denning, Danckwerts LJJ

Citations:

[1968] 1 QB 686

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another CA 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. . .
Cited – Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse CA 1980
A stay was sought against a bank which had financed a contract and was supporting litigation arising out of it.
Held: Although the liability in crime and tort had been abolished, Section 14(2) of the 1967 Act preserved the law as to the cases . .
Cited – Sibthorpe and Morris v London Borough of Southwark CA 25-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the extent to which the ancient rule against champerty prevents a solicitor agreeing to indemnify his claimant client against any liability for costs which she may incur against the defendant in the litigation in which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.183808

Roache v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 23 Nov 1992

In his libel action the plaintiff was awarded andpound;50,000 damages. The same sum had been paid into court, but he obtained additionally an injunction against further publication of the libel and on that account was awarded his costs by the judge below. The court was asked what costs order should be made after acceptance of a payment into court.
Held: The judge must look closely at the facts of the particular case before him and ask: who, as a matter of substance and reality, has won? Has the plaintiff won anything of value which he could not have won without fighting the action through to a finish? Has the defendant substantially denied the plaintiff the prize which the plaintiff fought the action to win? The real question which the judge should have asked was: Why did the plaintiff go on to trial and not accept the money in court: Or, was it a significant factor in the plaintiff’s decision not to accept the payment in but instead to proceed to trial that he was concerned to obtain an injunction which he reasonably believed he could not otherwise have got? The power to make a payment into court is a most useful weapon in the hands of a defendant faced with a greedy plaintiff making unreasonable demands for damages, but it will be completely blunted if, having failed to beat the payment into court, the plaintiff can say, ‘Oh well, I’m entitled to an injunction, the defendant didn’t offer me that and I have had to come to court to get it so I’m entitled to my costs.’ Where there is a substantial payment into court which the plaintiff fails to beat, it cannot be right that, because the defendant omits to make a ritualistic offer of an undertaking not to repeat the libel, he has to pay all the costs after payment in.

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Independent 31-Dec-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sugar v Venables and Michael Joseph Limited (2) CA 17-Oct-1997
The appellant challenged an order for costs against him. He had begun defamation proceedings which were settled upon the terms of an offer without prejudice as to costs. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s substantial costs incurred . .
Cited – Butcher v Wolfe and Another CA 30-Oct-1998
The parties had been partners in a family farm. On dissolution there was a dispute as to apportionment of costs. An offer had been ‘without prejudice save as to costs’.
Held: Costs may be denied to a plaintiff who had received a Calderbank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.180506

Dunedin Canmore Housing Association Ltd v Donaldson: EAT 8 Jul 2009

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs
Tribunal refused to award expenses where it dismissed claimant’s contractual claim. Claim was based on the claimant’s assertion that she had not breached the confidentiality clause in a compromise agreement, an assertion repeated by her in evidence before the Tribunal but which was not accepted. In rejecting her evidence it found that, notwithstanding her denials, she had made prohibited disclosures to two separate people. In these circumstances the Tribunal was in error in failing to find that the claimant acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting the proceedings and should have made an award of expenses against her.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0014 – 09 – 0807

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: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372611

Hannan and Another v Maxton: CA 8 Jun 2009

The parties had cohabited for several years, and now disputed ownership of properties they owned. The appellant now sought to appeal against the costs order, saying that it did not adequately reflect the fact that she had won.

Judges:

Carnwath, Toulson, Goldring LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 773, [2009] Fam Law 1031, [2010] 1 FLR 27, [2010] 1 FCR 482

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Costs

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.365605

Hale, Regina (On the Application of) v North Sefton Justices: Admn 14 Jan 2002

The court considered the words ‘in the proceedings’ in Regulation 7 of the 1986 Regulations. One issue was whether claims for attendance on the claimant prior to charge are for expenses incurred by the claimant ‘in the proceedings’. The court decided that claims for attendance prior to charge were encompassed by those words. Instructions were given at a time when charge was imminent and the bail on which the claimant had been placed was about to expire.
Auld LJ said: ‘It seems to me that on a sensible approach it cannot reasonably be said that the advice sought and given at the initial attendance was not ‘in the proceedings’ simply because the charge had not yet been preferred.’

Judges:

Auld LJ, Gage J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 257 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 7

Cited by:

Cited – Coulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant as editor of a newspaper. On leaving they entered into an agreement which the claimant said required the defendant to pay his legal costs in any action arising regarding his editorship. The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347789

E, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body Of JFS and Another: CA 10 Jul 2009

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Rimer

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 681

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – E v The Governing Body of JFS and Another Admn 3-Jul-2008
The court considered the impact of secular discrimination policy on admissions policies of religious schools.
Held: A school admissions policy which gave priority to children of their designated faith did not discriminate unlawfully either . .
Leave to Appeal – E v The Governing Body of JFS and Another Admn 16-Jul-2008
Application for leave to appeal. . .
Main CA Judgement – E, Regina (On the Application of) v The Governing Body of JFS and Another CA 25-Jun-2009
E challenged the admissions policy of a school which admitted by preference children acknowledged to be Jewish by the Office of their Rabbi. His mother being Jewish by conversion in a progressive synagogue, E was excluded. The claimant suggested . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – E, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 14-Oct-2009
The claimant had successfully challenged the policy of the school as racially discriminatory. He now sought an ancillary order that the respondents should not be allowed to request their costs from the defendant’s appeal whatever the outcome, the . .
See also – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Discrimination, Costs

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347469

Lord Chancellor v Rees and others: QBD 19 Dec 2008

Sir Charles Gray considered an appeal against the findings of a costs judge, saying: ‘it appears to me that it is incumbent on the Lord Chancellor in any appeal to the High Court to identify some question of law or principle which arises, since the High Court would be slow to differ from the assessment of the Costs Judge on an issue of fact or judgment.’

Judges:

Sir Charles Gray

Citations:

[2009] 1 All ER 163, [2008] EWHC 3168 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lord Chancellor v Ian Henery Solicitors Ltd QBD 8-Dec-2011
The court heard a challenge to arrangements within the graduated fees scheme for payment of defence lawyers, and in particular ‘when does a trial begin?’ and whether a case should be paid as a ‘trial’ or as a ‘cracked trial’. The trial had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.296307

Mason and others v Coleman and others (Costs): ChD 4 Dec 2007

Judges:

Behrens QC J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3149 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Costs – Mason and others v Coleman and others ChD 4-Dec-2007
Application for the Court to determine a number of outstanding issues relating to the costs of these proceedings. The proceedings were a claim for an account and other information brought by beneficiaries against trustees. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.263662

Mason and others v Coleman and others: ChD 4 Dec 2007

Application for the Court to determine a number of outstanding issues relating to the costs of these proceedings. The proceedings were a claim for an account and other information brought by beneficiaries against trustees.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3070 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Costs – Mason and others v Coleman and others (Costs) ChD 4-Dec-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Trusts

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.262963

Lavery v HM Inspector of Taxes: SCIT 31 Jul 2003

SCIT COSTS – Appellant’s appeal listed before General Commissioners in 1997 – Inland Revenue identified the Appellant’s appeal as a lead case and requested that jurisdiction be transferred to the Special Commissioners – meanwhile appeals of other taxpayers heard by General Commissioners from which Inland Revenue appealed to the High Court – whether the Respondent behaved ‘wholly unreasonably’ in connection with the hearing before the Special Commissioners – no – application dismissed – Special Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994 SI 1994 No. 1811 Reg 21(1)

Citations:

[2003] UKSC SPC00375

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.195431

Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd: TCC 15 May 2009

The Claimants were the residents of a housing estate who applied for a Group Litigation Order to pursue their claim of nuisance and negligence against a waste contractor. The Defendant requested the disclosure of their ‘after the event’ insurance policy as a condition of the GLO.
Held: The policy was disclosable both under CPR31.14 and under the court’s case management powers. This was an exception to the traditional approach that insurance policies are private as between the insured and insurer and thus not disclosable.

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1033 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.2) TCC 2-Oct-2009
. .
See Also – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No 3) TCC 19-Apr-2011
The claimants sought damages in nuisance saying that the defendant’s waster recycling plant was causing odorous pollution of their nearby homes. . .
See Also – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [No 4] TCC 19-Apr-2011
. .
See Also – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd CA 19-Mar-2012
The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims for nuisance in the form of smells emanating from the respondent neighbour’s waste processing plant. The defendant relied upon the grant of planning permission.
Held: The cause of action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347142

Weatherford Global Products Ltd v Hydropath Holdings Ltd and Others: TCC 10 Oct 2014

Application by successful party to join a third party so as to make costs order against him.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3243 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd and others (No. 2) PC 21-Jul-2004
PC (New Zealand) Costs were sought against a non-party, following an earlier determination by the Board.
Held: Jurisdiction to make such an order was not complete. Where the order sought was against a . .
Cited – Taylor v Pace Developments CA 1991
Lloyd LJ said: ‘There is only one immutable rule in relation to costs, and that is that there are no immutable rules.’
Lloyd LJ baulked at the suggestion that every director who funded and controlled litigation on behalf of an insolvent company . .
Cited – Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson CA 4-May-1993
A section 51 non-party costs application should not be used as a substitute for the pursuit of a related cause of action against the non-party in ordinary proceedings. Nine rules were set out for allowing a costs order against someone who is not a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.537524

Spiteri, Regina (On the Application of) v Basildon Crown Court: Admn 19 Mar 2009

The driver had successfully appealed against his conviction at the Magistrates, the court finding that the officer had not shown that he had asked a required question. He now appealed against refusal of an award of costs, the court having said that he had brought the prosecution on his own head by his conduct. The Crown Court refused to state a case.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Applying the Practice Direction, the Crown Court could not at the same time say that both that the defence was a mere technicality and acquit him. It was wrong at the same time to acquit him amd suggest that he was guilty of the offence. Also it was not sufficient to find that the defendant had brought the prosecution on himself. The Direction also required that he had misled the prosecution in some way as to the likelihodd of the success of the prosecution. That could not be said here.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 665 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Costs)

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Costs) 2004
‘Where a person is not tried for an offence for which he has been indicted, or in respect of which proceedings against him have been sent for trial or transferred for trial, or has been acquitted on any count in the indictment, the court may make a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Costs

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346850

Seymour Limousines Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 25 Feb 2009

VDT COSTS – Application for indemnity costs – Appeal conceded at late stage – Whether Customs’ resistance to appeal hopeless from outset – Held that Customs not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs on appeal – Opposition to hardship application for 9 months after clear evidence of hardship provided – Order for indemnity costs for that period – Trib Rules 1986, r.29(1) – Wrong test for hardship applied by Customs – VATA 1994 s.84(3)(b).

Citations:

[2009] UKVAT V20966

Links:

Bailii

VAT, Costs

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346544

Harrison v Tew: CA 1989

The client sought only taxation of his solicitor’s bill of costs, but more than twelve months after the bill had been paid, if not under the statutory provisions, then under the ‘inherent jurisdiction’ of the Court.
Held: Any inherent jurisdiction of the Court was ousted by the Act.

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1989] 1 QB 307

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Harrison v Tew HL 1990
The court considered whether a court could order an assessment of a solicitor’s bill of costs more than 12 months after it had been paid. It was argued that the Court has no power to order taxation under section 70(4) outside the statutory period of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.216339

Light On Line Ltd and Another v Zumtobel Lighting Ltd: QBD 29 Nov 2012

The claimants appealed against costs decisions to the effect that a redacted ATE insurance ertificate did not comply with the Costs practice Direction, refusing relief from the sanction of disallowing the claim for the premium, and against reduction of the percentage uplift applied for the claimants success fee.

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3376 (QB), [2013] 1 Costs LR 129, [2012] WLR(D) 373

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.466420

Imerman v Imerman: FD 13 Jan 2010

Judges:

Moylan J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 64 (Fam), [2010] Fam Law 334, [2010] 2 FLR 802

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Imerman v Imerman FD 11-Dec-2009
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.396651

Gore v Jones and Another: ChD 21 Feb 2001

The imposition of costs against a defendant on acceding to an application to set aside a judgment was not automatic, but an exercise of the judge’s discretion. An appeal might still only be allowed if the judge’s order was wrong in law or unjust through some serious procedural or other irregularity.

Citations:

Times 21-Feb-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.80934

Daleside Nursing Home Ltd v Mathew: EAT 18 Feb 2009

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs
Where at the heart of a claim is an explicit lie alleging racial abuse, the Employment Tribunal was in error failing to find that the Claimant acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the claim and should have made an order for costs against her.
Wilkie J said: ‘Where at the heart of a claim is an explicit lie alleging racial abuse, the employment tribunal was in error in failing to find that the claimant acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting her claim and should have made an order for costs against her.’

Judges:

Wilkie J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0519 – 08 – 1802

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 . .
Cited – Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University EAT 12-Jul-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Review
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
The Employment Tribunal did not err in refusing at a review hearing to vary its decision. The new evidence would not . .
Cited – Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others (Practice and Procedure : Costs) EAT 6-Jun-2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Tribunal orders that Appellant should pay Respondents one-third of their costs (estimated prior to assessment at andpound;260,000) on the basis that the claim was misconceived . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341246

Perinpanathan v City of Westminster Magistrates Court: Admn 10 Mar 2009

The claimant had successfully defended a forfeiture case, but had been refused an order for her costs by the magistrates. The magistrates had found that the case had been properly brought under the 2002 Act, even though it had failed.
Held: The request for judicial review failed.

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 762 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 820

Cited by:

Appeal from – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Magistrates

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341183

Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, Regina (On the Application of) v Coventry Crown Court: Admn 6 Jun 2000

The Chief Constable sought judicial review of the award against him of costs after a successful appeal against the revocation of a justices’ on-licence for premises in Coventry. The initial revocation had followed the cautioning of members of the licencee’s family, but not the licensee, after drugs had been found on searching the premises. The Chief constable said that he had not acted unreasonably or in bad failth, and the judgment on the successful appeal had contained no criticism.
Held: The request for judicial review succeeded. The judge at the crown court had been wrong to award costs. The judge had not wanted to criticise the police action publicly, but that was inappropriate, but even had the reasons been given they would have fallen short of the level of disapproval required before making an award of costs.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 648 (Admin), [2001] LLR 144

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Totnes Licensing Justices, ex parte Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall QBD 28-May-1990
The court considered the award of costs in a licensing case. Roch J said: ‘There can be no doubt that in civil proceedings between litigants, be it in the High Court or county court, the principle is that costs follow the event. The winning party . .
Cited – Regina v Methyr Tydfil Crown Court ex parte Chief Constable Dyfed Powys Police Admn 9-Nov-1998
Where the police had exercised their statutory duty in opposing a transfer of justices licence without being unreasonable or acting in bad faith, they should not be ordered to pay the applicant’s costs after a successful appeal to the Crown . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Licensing, Costs

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.331006

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy: ComC 22 Mar 2007

Application for security for costs.

Judges:

Field J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 697 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy CA 17-Oct-2007
The defendant resisted enforcement of a Moscow arbitration award saying it had been obtained by fraud, and sought security for costs.
The Court addressed the issue of security for the future costs of a challenge under section 103(3), which . .
See Also – Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy ComC 15-Feb-2008
Appeal against enforcement of interational arbitration award. . .
See Also – Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy ComC 21-May-2008
Whether interest recoverable under 1838 Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.251180

Ali and Another v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd: ChD 19 Apr 2018

Decision as to costs after findings of misuse of private information

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 840 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Ali and Another v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd ChD 22-Feb-2018
The claimants said that a filming of their eviction from property was an invasion of their privacy.
Held: The Claimants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information included in the Programme about which they . .

Cited by:

See Also – Ali and Another v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd CA 16-Apr-2019
The claimant’s eviction had been filmed and broadcast by the defendants. They succeeded in an award of pounds 10,000 damages for breach of their rights of privacy. The parties cross appealed against the sum awarded and the finding respectively.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.609076

In Re A Debtor (2672 of 2000): ChD 2 Nov 2000

More than six years after a costs order, the creditor began bankruptcy proceedings for unpaid costs. The debtor claimed the debt was time barred. The court found that the time started when the judgment became enforceable. As regards an order for costs, that happened only when the amount was fixed by taxation. The six year period had not expired with respect to that date.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Nov-2000, Times 05-Dec-2000

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Costs, Limitation

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.81648

Vestergaard Frandsen A/S and Others v Bestnet Europe Ltd and Others: ChD 15 Dec 2014

Application by the claimants to have struck out paragraphs in a defence witness statement on the basis that it referred to matters covered by a ‘without prejudice’ communication.
Held: There had been no waiver of privilege, and the paragraphs were struck out.

Judges:

Iain Purvis QC

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4047 (Ch), [2015] 1 Costs LR 85

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.550171

Findley v Motor Insurers’ Bureau and Another: SCCO 13 Jan 2009

‘I find, therefore, that as from [the date the Claimant lost mental capacity] the Claimant was no longer able to give instructions, and the contract was at that point frustrated.’

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 90130 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Blankley 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.

Costs, Health

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316663

Bilkus v Stockler Brunton (A Firm): SCCO 11 Nov 2008

Master Gordon-Saker refused to permit the Solicitors to substitute their proposed amended bill, on the ground that he could not be satisfied that the error in describing the claim for andpound;50,000 as an uplift in relation to all the work that they had carried out for Mr Bilkus, including their work in and for the purposes of the proceedings in the Chancery Division, was an error.

Judges:

Master Gordon-Saker

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 90118 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bilkus v Stockler Brunton (A Firm) ChD 30-Jul-2009
The court upheld the refusal of the master to allow the claimant solicitors to submit an amended bill: ‘In his oral submissions, Mr Stockler . . frankly acknowledged that he had been in error in supposing that it was possible to charge an uplift for . .
Master’s Decision – Bilkus v Stockler Brunton (A Firm) CA 16-Feb-2010
Solicitors appealed against the rejection of their claim for an uplift in their fees amounting to andpound;50,000, based on the value element in the transaction in the 1994 Order. The court had to decide whether the matter came under the rules as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316666

Morgan and Another v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd: CA 2 Mar 2009

The claimants had alleged that smells from a composting site near their homes constituted a private nuisance. Following the discharge of an interim injunction, Judge Seymour ordered the claimants to pay the costs of the injunction proceedings. The claimants appealed against the costs order on the ground that this imposed upon them prohibitive expense, contrary to article 9.4 of the Aarhus Convention.
Held: The claimants appeal was dismissed. The court reviewed the history of protective costs orders. Carnwath LJ summarised the status of the Aarhus Convention in English law as follows: ‘For the purposes of domestic law, the Convention has the status of an international treaty, not directly incorporated. Thus its provisions cannot be directly applied by domestic courts, but may be taken into account in resolving ambiguities in legislation intended to give it effect (see Halsbury’s Laws Vol 44(1) Statutes para 1439)). Ratification by the European Community itself gives the European Commission the right to ensure that Member States comply with the Aarhus obligations in areas within Community competence (see Commission v France Case C-293/03 (2004) ECR I-09325 paras 25-31. Furthermore provisions of the Convention have been reproduced in two EC environmental Directives, dealing respectively with Environmental Assessment and Integrated Pollution Control (neither applicable in the present case).’ and It is unnecessary, in our view, to consider the application of the Convention in further detail, because there is in our view an insuperable objection to the claimant’s case in this respect. That is that the point was not mentioned before the judge. This is admitted by Mr Hart. His answer is that the requirement to comply with the Convention is ‘an obligation to the Court’, which should have been considered by the judge of his own motion; or alternatively, it is a requirement on this court in reviewing the judge’s decision in order to avoid contravention of the Convention.
We are unable to accept that argument. Mr Hart could not point to any legal principle which would enable us to treat a pure treaty obligation, even one adopted by the European Community, as converted into a rule of law directly binding on the English court. As we have said, it is at most a matter potentially relevant to the exercise of the judge’s discretion. If the claimants wished him to take it into account, they needed not only to make the submission, but also to provide the factual basis to enable him to judge whether the effect of his order would indeed be ‘prohibitive’. The defendant would also no doubt have wished to give evidence of its own position.’

Judges:

Carnwath LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 107

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters made at Aarhus, Denmark on 25 June 1998

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 – Eweida v British Airways plc CA 16-Oct-2009
Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform. . .
Cited – Austin and Others v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants appealed against refusal of a Group Litigation Order (GLO). Over 500 parties wished to claim in nuisance caused by open cast mining operations conducted by the defendants.
Held: The appeals failed. The making of a GLO is a matter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Costs

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.311764

Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd: TCC 20 Feb 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 274 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd (Prelinary Issues) TCC 13-Jun-2008
. .
See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd TCC 13-Jun-2008
. .
See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Jul-2008
Pre-trial hearing on matter preparatory to substantial trial of construction dispute. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.301658

Quintavalle and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Admn 9 Dec 2008

The claimants wished to challenge licensing decisions made by the respondent, and for a protective costs order.

Judges:

Dobbs J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3395 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell HL 17-May-1990
The House sought to reconcile section 31 of the 1981 Act, with RSC Order 53 r4 as to the time within which judicial review proceedings must be brought.
Held: Whenever there was a failure to act promptly or within three months there was ‘undue . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Furneaux CA 1994
The court is entitled to refuse a request for judicial review on the sole ground of delay without any requirement of a causal link between the delay and any prejudice. Mere tardiness or incompetence of legal or other advisors is normally not a good . .
Cited – Regina (Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre) v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority CA 31-Jan-2002
The applicant was undergoing fertility treatment. She wanted to have more than three eggs implanted, but permission for this was refused by the Authority. She sought to challenge that by way of judicial review.
Held: Judicial review was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Costs

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.293967

Birmingham City Council v Crook and others: QBD 19 Jun 2007

Irwin J considered the enforceability of a conditional fee agreement in a test series of housing disrepair cases, recorded that he had been told that this Council almost always lost such claims brought against them, and had evidence about the availability of legal aid.

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1415 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Birmingham City Council v Lee CA 30-Jul-2008
Costs in a housing disrepair case: ‘The question which we have to consider arises where, on receipt of that notification, the landlord promptly carries out the repairs. If he does, that will remove from the tenant’s claim in the court action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.296293