Category: Costs

Crowch, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 15 Apr 2008

The applicant had successfully defended himself in person on a motoring charge, and appealed refusal of an order for costs in his favour. Loss of earnings.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 948 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267410

Carver v BAA Plc: CA 22 Apr 2008

The claimant had succeeded in her claim and had recovered more than the sum paid in by the defendant, and now appealed an order for costs in favour of the defendant.
Held: The award of costs to a successful claimant achieving more than any sum paid in was not automatic. Where the court felt that the litigation had been conducted in an inappropriate manner, as here, it had a discretion to depart from the normal order and award the defendant their costs. The court had a discretion to take into account all the circumstances when asking whether a settlement was more advantageuos than the sum paid in. The claimant here had only just bettered the payment in and had pursued her claim well beyond a time when she should have done.

Judges:

Ward, Rix, Keene LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 412, Times 04-Jun-2008, [2009] 1 WLR 113, [2008] 3 All ER 911, [2008] PIQR P15, [2008] LS Law Medical 351, [2008] CP Rep 30

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36.14(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gibbon v Manchester City Council, L G Blower Specialist Bricklayer Ltd, Reeves and another CA 25-Jun-2010
A payment in had been made, and a counter offer made by the claimant. The original offer was increased but rejected. The counter-offer was not withdrawn, and was then accepted by the defendant. On receipt of the acceptance, the claimant purported to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267004

Gower Chemicals Group Litigation v Gower Chemicals Ltd and Another: QBD 17 Apr 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 735 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Hazlett v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 2-Dec-1999
The need for a party claiming his costs to give evidence to prove his entitlement to costs rather than relying on the presumption in his favour, will not arise if the defendant simply puts the complainant to proof of his entitlement to costs. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266966

Cumbria Waste Management Ltd and Another v Baines Wilson (A Firm): QBD 16 Apr 2008

The court was asked to consider whether documents generated in a mediation could be disclosed by one of those parties in later proceedings against solicitors for negligence in drafting and negotiation and agreement with the other party, which gave rise to the disputes dealt with in the mediation.
Held: Judge Kirkham considered both questions of privilege and confidentiality.

Judges:

Kirkham HHJ

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 786 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.

Cited by:

Cited – Farm Assist Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (No 2) TCC 19-May-2009
The mediator who had acted in attempting to resolve the dispute between the parties sought to have set aside a witness summons issued by the claimant who sought to have the mediated agreement set aside for economic duress.
Held: In this case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266910

Benaim (UK) Ltd v Middleton and Another: TCC 26 Mar 2004

The company complained that the agreement between the other party and its solicitors was an unenforceable Conditional Fee Agreement and that therefore they had no obligation to indemnify the other party. They said that the agreement was champertous.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 737 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Torts – Other

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266698

Floods of Queensferry Ltd and Another v Shand Construction Ltd and others: CA 29 May 2002

An application had been made for a non-party costs order against a director of the company claimant.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 918

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – BE Studios Ltd v Smith and Williamson Ltd ChD 2-Dec-2005
The claimant company had failed in its action. The court was asked to make a costs order personally against the principal director of the claimant who had controlled the litigation and funded it. He responded that no impropriety had been shown on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.217169

Research In Motion UK Ltd v Visto Corporation: CA 6 Mar 2008

Article 28: ‘requires an assessment of the degree of connection, and then a value judgment as to the expediency of hearing the two actions together (assuming they could be so heard) in order to avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments. It does not say that any possibility of inconsistent judgments means that they are inevitably related. It seems to us that the Article leaves it open to a court to acknowledge a connection, or a risk of inconsistent judgments, but to say that the connection is not sufficiently close, or the risk is not sufficiently great, to make the actions related for the purposes of the Article. Mechanics do not, for once, provide a complete answer.’

Judges:

Mummery, Jacob LJJ, Mann J

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 153, [2008] FSR 20, [2008] Bus LR D141

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation 44/2001 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Television Autonomica Valenciana, Sa v Imagina Contenidos Audiovisuales, Sl ChD 8-Feb-2013
The defendant sought a stay of these proceedings pending the outcome of related proceedings in Spain. The claimant sought a declaration that a contract was terminated and damages for such breach. The Spanish proceedings were first in time.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.266102

Hodgson and others v Imperial Tobacco Limited Gallagher Limited etc: CA 12 Feb 1998

A large number of plaintiffs brought actions against the defendants, three tobacco companies, claiming damages for personal injuries by reason of cancer which they claimed was caused by smoking cigarettes manufactured by the defendants. A hearing for directions was heard ‘in chambers’ and an issue arose as to what the parties could say about that hearing. The judge had not delivered a judgment, and had said that a copy of his directions could be released to the public, but that the parties and their advisers were not to make any comment to the media in relation to the litigation without the leave of the court.
Held: Lawyers conducting cases under conditional fee agreements bear no different or greater risk of facing personal costs orders for that reason. If the statutory requirements are complied with the CFA will be valid and enforceable by the legal advisers against a client. If it materially departs from the legislative requirements, it will not be enforceable and will not be a CFA which is protected. It was wrong to impose order banning publicity for that reason. The issue arose (but was not fully argued) as to the disclosabiity of Conditional Fee Agreements. The court said that absent exceptional circumstances, unless and until the other partyapplies to make the legal advisers personally liable for costs, the existence or the terms of a CFA are of no relevance to the issues and the proceedings. They are therefore on that ground not required to be disclosed.
Proceedings in chambers are described as being conducted ‘in private’ and Lord Woolf described the principles referable to proceedings in chambers as including: ‘To disclose what occurs in chambers does not constitute a breach of confidence or amount to contempt so long as any comment which is made does not substantially prejudice the administration of justice.’
Lord Woolf said: ‘What has happened since the order has been made strongly suggests that it would have been preferable to have given all the directions which were made on 10 October in open court, together with a judgment explaining why they were made, so that it would not have been necessary for the legal advisers to communicate with the media in order to explain what had happened.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Aldous, Chadwick LJJ

Citations:

Times 13-Feb-1998, Gazette 16-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 224, [1998] 1 WLR 1056, [1998] 2 All ER 673, [1998] 1 Costs LR 14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 1995 (1995 N0 1675), Courts and Legal Services Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lord Chancellor’s Department ex parte Child Poverty Action Group Admn 6-Feb-1998
The claimant sought an order with regard to its costs in an anticipated application to the court. The application was refused. Requests in a public interest action for an advance order for costs could only be awarded in very exceptional . .

Cited by:

Cited – Allan v Clibbery (1) CA 30-Jan-2002
Save in cases involving children and ancillary and other situations requiring it, cases in the family division were not inherently private. The appellant failed to obtain an order that details of an action under the section should not be disclosed . .
Cited – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement.
Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the . .
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 – HM Attorney General v British Broadcasting Corporation CA 12-Mar-2007
The police were conducting a major investigation into suspected awards of state honours in return for cash and associated events. The AG had obtained an order restraining the defendant and other media from reporting allegations that one person was . .
Cited – Coward v Harraden QBD 2-Dec-2011
Parties had fought each other in wide ranging litigation. The claimant found covert surveillance devices in his home, and discovered evidence that the defendant may have information as to who had placed them. Earlier orders had been made for the . .
Cited – ABC Ltd v Y ChD 6-Dec-2010
There had been proceedings as to the misuse of confidential information. X, a non-party, now sought disclosure of papers used in that case. The case had been settled by means of a Tomlin Schedule, and that, subject to further order, non-parties . .
Cited – Storer v British Gas plc CA 25-Feb-2000
An industrial tribunal hearing conducted behind the locked doors of the chairman’s office was not held in public, even if, in fact, no member of the public was prevented from attending. The obligation to sit in public was fundamental, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Media, Costs

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.143702

West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust: CA 17 Jul 2019

A number of specific issues arising out of the respondent’s successful challenge to the amount of the ATE insurance premium recoverable by the appellants. By common consent, however, the issues also raise a number of wider points relating to reasonableness and proportionality and the proper approach to the assessment of costs.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lord Justice Irwin and Lord Justice Coulson

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1220

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.639671

Dayman v Aziz: ChD 16 Jul 2008

The receiver sought an order to confirm that she was entitled to charge for her services as a court appointed receiver.

Judges:

Mackie QC J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2244 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.276671

Ultraframe UK Ltd v Clayton and others: ChD 14 Feb 2003

Laddie J said: ‘I have to resolve a dispute between the parties on the issue of costs following on from the determination of the preliminary issues ordered to be heard by His Honour Judge Behrens. It is difficult to summarise the complex multifaceted dispute which exists between the parties and in relation to which the determination of the preliminary issues arose. The issues I had to concern myself with related to the ownership of the design rights in the parts from which conservatories are made, whether a case of infringement by the defendants have been out and whether design rights subsisted. However this is just a part of what is really a very big and convoluted dispute. ‘

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 242 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Ultraframe UK Limited v Clayton, Fielding and Others ChD 3-Oct-2002
The claimants asserted infringement of their registered design rights in parts used in their double glazing and conservatory units. ‘Therefore it is possible for design right to subsist in the design of the part of the article which is not excluded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.227063

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others: ChD 11 Nov 2005

Ultraframe asked the judge to re-open his ‘in the round’ decision on costs.
Held: The decision questioned was not a draft, but a concluded judgment. The judge said that he had not made such a ‘palpable error’ in his order as to give him jurisdiction to re-open the decision.
Lewison J said: ‘The taking of an account is the means by which a beneficiary requires a trustee to justify his stewardship of trust property. The trustee must show what he has done with that property. If the beneficiary is dissatisfied with the way that a trustee has dealt with trust assets, he may surcharge or falsify the account. He surcharges the account when he alleges that the trustee has not obtained for the benefit of the trust all that he might have done, if he had exercised due care and diligence. If the allegation is proved, then the account is taken as if the trustee had received, for the benefit of the trust, what he would have received if he had exercised due care and diligence. The beneficiary falsifies the account when he alleges that the trustee has applied trust property in a way that he should not have done (e.g. by making an unauthorised investment). If the allegation is proved, then the account will be taken as if the expenditure had not been made; and as if the unauthorised investment had not formed part of the assets of the trust. Of course if the unauthorised investment has appreciated in value, the beneficiary may choose not to falsify the account: in which case the asset will remain a trust asset and the expenditure on it will be allowed in taking the account.’

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2506 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Robinson v Fernsby, Scott-Kilvert CA 19-Dec-2003
The judge had drafted his judgment and sent the drafts to the parties for comment. He then received additional written representations from one party, from which he realised that he had made an error, and issued a corrected judgment which a . .
Cited – In re Barrell Enterprises CA 1972
A judge has power to reconsider a judgement which he has delivered before the order consequent upon it has been sealed, but the judge should only exercise this power if there are strong reasons for doing so. When oral judgments have been given the . .
See Also – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Pullan v Wilson and Others ChD 28-Jan-2014
The court was asked difficult questions concerning the reasonableness of the remuneration charged to a number of family trusts by a professional trustee.
Held: Excessive claims for fees had been made, and the trustees were ordered to repay . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Trusts

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.234733

Weston and Another v Weston and others: ChD 21 Oct 2005

Action to wind up partnership, and appeal against permission to proceed with assessment of costs despite a twenty year delay.

Judges:

Nicholas Davidson QC

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2249 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Biguzzi v Rank Leisure Plc CA 26-Jul-1999
The court’s powers under the new CPR to deal with non-compliance with time limits, were wide enough to allow the court to allow re-instatement of an action previously struck out. The court could find alternative ways of dealing with any delay which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Costs

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.231579

Ilangaratne v British Medical Association: ChD 4 Oct 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2096 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Ilangaratne v British Medical Association EAT 1-May-1998
. .
See Also – Ilangaratne v British Medical Association EAT 11-May-1999
. .
See Also – Ilangaratne v British Medical Association EAT 29-Sep-1999
. .
See Also – Ilangaratne v British Medical Association and Another EAT 29-Mar-2001
. .
See Also – Ilangaratne v British Medical Association and others EAT 29-May-2002
. .
See Also – Dr J B Ilangaratne v British Medical Association Dr Richard Smith EAT 24-Mar-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .

Cited by:

see also – Ilangaratne v British Medical Association ChD 9-May-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.231274

Crane v Canons Leisure Centre: CA 19 Dec 2007

Sums paid out by a solicitor to his costs draughtsman are profit costs as part of the base costs to which the success fee mark-up under a conditional fee agreement applies, rather than disbursements. The defining characteristic was whether the solicitor remained responsible for the work charged. It was sensible not to overcomplicate the conditional fees system.

Judges:

May, Maurice Kay, Hallett LJJ, Chief Master Hurst

Citations:

Times 10-Jan-2008, [2007] EWCA Civ 1352, [2008] 1 WLR 2549, [2008] 1 Costs LR 132, [2008] 2 All ER 931, [2008] CP Rep 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263404

Nigel Witham Ltd v Smith and Another (No. 2): TCC 4 Jan 2008

Judges:

Peter Coulson QC J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 12 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.

Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263264

Jones v Wrexham Borough Council: CA 19 Dec 2007

The claimant appealed against a decision that the conditional fee agreement with her solicitors had been unenforceable because the solicitors had not disclosed to her a conflicting interest in recommending insurers. The issue was whether the CFA was one within Regulation 3A of the 2003 Regulations under which ‘the client is liable to pay his legal representative’s fees and expenses only to the extent that the sums are recovered in respect of the relevant proceedings’ (known as a ‘CFA lite’). But the exercise was one of construing the agreement.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court should analyse the arrangement for the agreement, the supporting client-care letter and the policy which was recommended. Its contents were of legitimate concern to the clients, not least because they formed the justification for imposing on the clients a substantial costs liability in the event of success.
Waller LJ said: ‘I can see no reason why the court should not look at the whole package produced by the solicitor, the CFA agreement, the rule 15 letter explaining to the client the effect of the agreement, and indeed the insurance policy recommended by the solicitor . . ‘

Judges:

Waller LJ VP, Longmore LJ, Hughes Lj

Citations:

[2008] 1 WLR 1590, [2007] EWCA Civ 1356

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 692). , Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 27(1), Conditional Fee Agreement (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement.
Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the . .
Cited – Garrett v Halton Borough Council CA 18-Jul-2006
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd; Jones v Attrill etc CA 11-Dec-2008
The defendants sought to argue that the conditional fee arrangement used by the claimant’s solicitors had been void under the 2000 regulations. They claimed that the solicitors had failed to disclose an interest in the policies sold.
Held: No . .
Cited – Radford and Another v Frade and Others QBD 8-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to the terms on which solicitors and Counsel were retained to act for the defendants. The appeals did not raise any issues concerning costs practice, and were by way of review of the Costs Judge’s rulings, and not by way of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262936

Hall and others v Stone: CA 18 Dec 2007

The claimants appealed against a reduction in their costs awards after succeeding in their claims arising from road traffic incidents. The judge had awarded them only 60% of their costs and they appealed submitting that there was no reason why they should not get 100%.
Held: The appeal succeeded. It was the defendant insurers allegations of fraud which had inevitably lead to the cases being allocated to the multitrack with the increased costs. The judge had found the claims to be innocently inflated, but not dishonest. The first two claimants had won on the main issue fought out over four days as to whether the claims were dishonest and they beat any offer that had ever been made. It was unfair to allocate full responsibility for the allocation to the mutitrack to the claimants.

Judges:

Waller LJ VP, Smith LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1354

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 44.3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Devine v Franklin QBD 2002
. .
Cited – Painting v University of Oxford CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant had sought damages for personal injuries, namely injury to her back. Though she was found to have exaggerated her claim, she still recovered more than had been paid in. The defendant appealed a costs order based solely on the size of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Widlake v BAA Ltd CA 23-Nov-2009
The claimant had succeeded in her action for personal injuries, but now appealed against the awarding of costs to the defendant. The dispute had been substantialy as to the nature and effect of her injuries. She had not disclosed earlier injury to . .
Cited – Gregson v Hussein, CIS Insurance CA 9-Feb-2010
The claimant appealed against the level of costs awarded to him in succeeding in his claim for damages for personal injury following a road traffic accident. The court had found that though the claimant had succeeded, the substantial dispute had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262878

Amber Construction Services Ltd v London Interspace Hg Ltd: TCC 18 Dec 2007

The parties had disputed the terms of a construction contract, but it was settled very shortly after issue of proceedings. The court was asked whether only fixed costs should be payable if the defendant to an issued claim admits or pays the sum claimed within a few days of the issue on or before the Acknowledgement of Service. The Defendant argued that the Claimant’s costs were limited to andpound;100, the fixed amount payable where liability in full is admitted.
Held: In both Rules 45.1 and 45.3, the Court retains a discretion to ‘order otherwise’. Thus, in appropriate cases, the Court retains its discretion to order such costs as are appropriate. Fixed costs applied in default if the Court does not otherwise order. In this case it was appropriate to use that discretion given the facts and background.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3042 (TCC), [2008] 1 EGLR 1, [2008] Bus LR D46, [2008] BLR 74, [2008] 9 EG 202

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 45.1

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262895

Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd: CA 15 Nov 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1309

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd ChD 9-Mar-2007
Dispute over right to light.
Gabriel Moss QC HHJ said: ‘I would deduce the following principles from these cases in relation to the assessment of damages for loss of the ability to prevent an infringement of a right to light at the point just . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261955

HLB Kidsons (A Firm) v Lloyds Underwriters (Policy No 621/Pkid00101) and others: Comc 22 Nov 2007

Judges:

Gloster J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2699 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Main Judgment – HLB Kidsons (A Firm) v Lloyds Underwriters Subscribing To Lloyds Policy No 621/Pkid00101 and others ComC 9-Aug-2007
. .

Cited by:

See Also – HLB Kidsons (A Firm) v Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Lloyd’s Policy No 621/ Pk1D00101 and others CA 31-Oct-2008
In construing the terms of insurance policies written in the Lloyd’s market, counsel submitted that the court should have regard to the post-contract conduct of persons acting for the parties, on the basis that the conduct of those persons was . .
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.

Insurance, Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261822

Waltham Forest v Maloba, The Law Society: CA 4 Dec 2007

The applicant had been refused accomodation as homeless after disclosing the ownership of a family home in Uganda. He had lived and worked in the UK for 15 years. The authority did not accept that it had later been repossessed. The council now appealed against a finding to the contrary, saying that, per Osmani, to find accomodation unreasonable, an applicant had first to occupy it and then leave it.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Sedley LJ had said in Osmani that no local authority could contemplate asking this of an applicant. Auld had not accepted the interpretation proposed and his view was to be preferred. An applicant was not to be required to return to unsuitable accomodation and to leave it before being treated as uunintentionally homeless. Nor was the council entitled only to look at the size and structural quality of the available accomonation. Other proper reasons might apply, as they did here.
As to costs the court declined to accept that there should be a general practice of ordering a stay on costs in favour of authorities on such appeals.

Judges:

Toulson, Carnwath LJJ, P

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1281, [2008] 2 All ER 701, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 555, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 685, [2008] 1 WLR 2079, [2007] All ER (D) 32, 151 Sol Jo 1597, (2007) 151 SJLB 1597, [2008] BLGR 409, [2008] HLR 26, [2007] NPC 131

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 175(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Begum (Nipa) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council CA 1-Nov-1999
The fact that the accommodation found to be available to the applicant for housing was in Bangladesh did not make it unavailable in law. The subsections must be read separately. Accommodation could be available to the applicant even though she could . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Cited – Osmani v London Borough of Camden CA 16-Dec-2004
Auld LJ set out the test to be applied by an authority when deciding whether the applicant was vulnerable for the purposes of deciding whether to give priority housing assistance. The courts had recognised the difficult, involved nature of the . .
Cited – Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
Cited – Lockley v National Blood Transfusion Service CA 1992
There was an interlocutory dispute over the granting of an extension of time for service of the defence. The legally aided plaintiff challenged the costs orders made by the district registrar and the judge. Each ordered that the costs be the . .
Cited – Sonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261777

Read v Edmed: QBD 8 Dec 2004

The claimant had offered to accept damages subject to a 50% finding of contributory negligence. The defendant did not accept. That was the exact order made. The claimant appealed refusal to award her costs on the standard basis to the time for acceptance of the offer and thereafter on an indemnity basis.
Held: The judge had doubted his order and asked counsel to return on the following day to consider the issue. Neither counsel could explain why the CPR should exclude an award equal to the offer. The rules should encourage appropriate offers. The court exercised its discretion and awarded costs on a standard basis up to 28 days after the claimants offer, and thereafter on an indemnity basis, together with interest on the indemnity costs.

Judges:

Bell J

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-2004, [2004] EWHC 3274 (QB), [2006] 2 Costs LR 201, [2005] PIQR P16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36.21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pittalis v Sherefettin CA 1986
On the day after the judge had given judgment in a county court, he decided that he had been wrong. The judge provided the party with grounds upon which he would, if not persuaded otherwise, alter his previous judgment and order. A further hearing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules, Personal Injury

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.221535

Spencer v Wood and Another (T/A Gordons Tyres, A Firm): CA 15 Mar 2004

A conditional fee agreement was invalid in failing to specify how much of the success fee was attributable to a cost for the representative’s agreement to postone his fees and expenses.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 352, Times 30-Mar-2004, [2004] 3 Costs LR 372

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.195535

Gosalakkal v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (Costs – Detailed Assessment): EAT 4 Jul 2019

COSTS – Detailed Assessment
1. In conducting a detailed assessment of costs, the Employment Judge misunderstood the degree of overlap between (1) the Claimant’s complaints of ‘whistleblowing’ detriment and automatic unfair dismissal, in respect of which an order for costs was made, and (2) the Claimant’s other complaints, in particular ordinary unfair dismissal, in respect of which no order for costs was made.
2. In assessing the proportionality of the costs, the Employment Judge relied on the Claimant’s schedules claiming in excess of pounds 2 million. These were the documents of a lay person. She ought to have asked herself what was really in issue in the proceedings, and in so deciding should have taken into account the lower and more realistic schedule lodged by the Claimant’s representatives at a time when he was represented.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0114 – 18 – 0407

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Gosalakkal v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust EAT 4-Jul-2019
(Practice and Procedure – Reconsideration) The Employment Judge did not give supportable reasons for refusing the Claimant’s application for reconsideration. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.639330

Walker v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons: PC 21 Nov 2007

The committee allowed the veterinary surgeon’s appeal for his removal from the register, substituting a six months’ suspension. The College opposed his request for his costs.
Held: The costs should be awarded.
Lord Mance said: ‘The Royal College takes three points in relation to this application. First, it submits that it conflicts with a principle to be derived from cases such as City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v. Booth . . Gorlov v. Institute of Chartered Accountants . . and, most recently, Baxendale-Walker v. The Law Society . .
As to the first point, the Board, without commenting upon or going into the principle advanced, considers that it cannot bear on the present situation. The authorities relied on concern the different position of costs before disciplinary tribunals or before a court upon a first appeal against an administrative decision by a body such as a police or regulatory authority. In the present case, the Disciplinary Committee made no order for costs in respect of the proceedings before it (in which Dr Walker was represented by counsel), and no-one has challenged that.
The present appeal came before the Board under section 17 of the 1966 Act, subs. (2) of which provides that
‘The Council of the College may appear as respondent on any such appeal and, for the purpose of enabling directions to be given as to the costs of any such appeal, shall be deemed to be a party thereto whether they appeared on the hearing of the appeal or not.’
The Board has in practice made costs orders against the Royal College when an appeal succeeded . . and in the College’s favour in cases of unsuccessful appeals . . A similar position has applied with appeals from other similar disciplinary committees . . No order for costs was made in two cases where the appeal failed on liability, but succeeded on penalty . .
The Board sees no reason to depart from its previous practice. Here, there was no appeal on liability and it was at all times accepted and submitted on Dr Walker’s behalf that the appropriate disposal would have been and was suspension for a period such as that which the Board in the event advised should be imposed. The present appeal was at all times also fully and firmly opposed by the Royal College. If Dr Walker has lost, there would been good reason for a costs order against him. As he succeeded, a costs order in his favour seems to the Board in principle fair.’

Judges:

Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2007] UKPC 64

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 1792)

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.

Health Professions, Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261491

Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers Llp: ChD 23 Nov 2007

The court considered an appeal against a costs award where the solicitors had given an estimate, but had then exceeded the estimate.
Held: Morgan J said: ‘The closing submissions were recorded by the Costs Judge at paragraph 59 and 60 of his judgment, which included the reference to Cook on Costs, 2007 Edition page 15. The passage in Cook on Costs stated that unless the client was notified of the further sums payable, preferably before they were incurred, then the solicitor would be unable to recover costs in excess of the estimated amount. In my judgment, that passage does not correctly state the law. It seems to me that on a fair reading of the judgment, the Costs Judge was relying on this passage in Cook on Costs. Insofar as the Costs Judge relied upon that passage in Cook on Costs he was led into error in making his finding as to the contractual position. The contractual position is that the solicitors are entitled to a reasonable fee and in the present case in respect of certain bills that fee is to be the subject of a detailed assessment. At the stage of the detailed assessment, the estimate has the relevance which I have described above as a yardstick and in respect of any case raised by the client as to reliance on the estimate. Although the Costs Judge referred . . to ‘all the evidence, oral and documentary’, it seems to me that I must inevitably find that his reasoning is based on his analysis of the contractual position, which for the reasons I have given was incorrect. It follows that I must allow the appeal.’

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2733 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261501

Davey v Aylesbury Vale District Council: CA 15 Nov 2007

The court was asked whether, as a matter of law or of practice, an order for costs made in favour of a successful respondent to judicial review proceedings includes costs incurred prior to the grant of permission unless these are expressly excluded.
Held: An order of costs could properly include an order to recover costs incurred responding to the claimant’s complaints and enquiries before issue of judicial review proceedings, including the costs of serving the acknowledgment of service but excluding the costs of any oral permission hearing.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sedley LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1166, Times 21-Nov-2007, [2008] 1WLR 878

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Smoke Club Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Admn 29-Oct-2013
The claimant had been refused leave to bring judicial review. It then renewed its application before finally wthdrawing it. The court now considered liability for costs.
Held: ‘There are particular reasons for the particular rules governing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261311

3 Individual Present Professional Trustees of 2 Trusts v an Infant Prospective Beneficiary of One Trust and others: ChD 25 Jul 2007

The parties challenged under the 198 Act the right of trustees to seek a Beddoe order protecting themselves against an award of costs.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1922 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 Part 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam CA 1893
A trustee had unsuccessfully defended an action against the trust in detinue for the return of deeds. He now sought protection against a costs order. Costs having been awarded against a trustee in proceeding A, the trustee sought to be indemnified . .
Cited – In re Moritz CA 1960
Trustees had denied the defendants a sight of the exhibits to affidavits. Their’ counsel argued for a settled practice that where an application is made by trustees for directions of the Beddoe kind, then the proposed defendant beneficiaries should . .
Cited – McDonald and Others v Horn and Others CA 8-Aug-1994
A court may make a pre-emptive award of costs to pension fund members who wished to sue the trustees. Hoffmann LJ said: ‘if one looks at the economic relationships involved, there does seem to me to be a compelling analogy between a minority . .
Cited – Re Evans 1986
. .
Cited – Marley and 11 Others v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd Co PC 15-Oct-1990
BANKING – EQUITY, TRUSTS, PROBATE ADMINISTRATOR’S POWERS OF INVESTMENT Bank as sole administrator cannot invest estate funds in its own deposits in the absence of express sanction in the trust instrument.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: ‘A . .
Cited – McDonald and Others v Horn and Others ChD 12-Oct-1993
A pre-emptive costs order is possible where Plaintiffs are impecunious but the case is very strong. . .
Cited – In re Trusts of X Charity ChD 2003
If a hearing is heard in private, then it is open to the court to rule that its judgment should be maintained in private. Sir Andrew Morritt said: ‘This, essentially administrative, jurisdiction is designed to provide guidance to the fiduciary as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Human Rights, Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259656

LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others: TCC 30 Sep 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2113 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

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.
Principal judgment – LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258721

Surzur Overseas Ltd v Nicholas Koros and Others: SCCO 20 Jul 2001

The Claimant company, a subsidiary of Societe Generale of France, lent substantial sums of money to a group of ship owning companies managed by Blue Flag Navigation Ltd. The principal of Blue Flag was Mr Koros the First Defendant, he also guaranteed the loans to the various shipping companies. By the end of 1996 the companies were in default of their obligations under the loan facilities and in December 1996 the claimant company demanded repayment of some US $54 million from the First Defendant as guarantor. In January 1997 Surzur obtained a mareva injunction over Mr Koros’ assets and issued proceedings against him. In April 1997 judgment was obtained against him in the sum of US $35 million. The Claimant’s case in these proceedings was that the various Defendants conspired between themselves and with Mr Koros to use unlawful means to cheat and defraud Surzur by concealing Mr Koros’ assets. It was asserted that the Defendants made fraudulent and misleading statements, forged documents, gave false and misleading instructions to solicitors, made dishonest and malicious applications to court and procured and deployed false evidence both in and out of court. The 2nd, 13th and 14th Defendants were all resident in Greece and made applications to set aside the service of the proceedings against them on various grounds. One of these proved successful before Longmore J, namely that the case against them was not reasonably arguable because, as a matter of law, they were immune from suit on the basis of witness immunity. Longmore J found in favour of the Defendants and the Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal where that decision was reversed. The Defendants’ petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was dismissed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Forbes sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 7, [2001] EWHC 9008 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.185947

Chantrey Vellacott v The Convergence Group Plc and others: ChD 31 Jul 2007

The claimants, a firm of accountants, sued their former clients for unpaid fees. The defendant company counterclaimed for professional negligence. The claimant had expended andpound;5.6m in costs. The claimants now sought a non-party costs order against former directors of the company, which had gone into administration. They said that the company’s counterclaim was built on lies told by the directors.
Held: ‘this is a clear case for indemnity costs. I found Mr Robinson to be an evasive and untruthful witness who has sought throughout these proceedings to support a case that was advanced on a false basis.’ The director personally controlled the company and made the decisions, and his behaviour took him outside the protection of limited liability.

Judges:

Rimer J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1774 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51, Civil Procedure Rules 48.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ghafoor and others v Cliff and others ChD 11-Apr-2006
The applicant had obtained revocation of a grant of administration ad colligenda bona in the estate, and having succeeded, now sought costs. The question was whether there had been proper reasons for the application for the grant. The deceased’s . .
Cited – Globe Equities Ltd v Globe Legal Services Ltd and others and Other Actions CA 5-Mar-1999
A court which was considering ordering a third party, who was not party to the action, to pay costs in an action, should first be satisfied that it is just to do so in all the circumstances. There is no need to establish any exceptional . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v The Governor and Company of the Bank of England ComC 12-Apr-2006
The claimants had pursued compensation over many years from the defendants alleging various kinds of misfeasance in regulating the bank BCCI. The action had collapsed.
Held: ‘this was extraordinary litigation which came to an abrupt albeit . .
Cited – Goodwood Recoveries Ltd v Breen CA 19-Apr-2005
A claim against the defendant for money owed to someone else had been bought by the claimant of which Slater, a solicitor, was a director and shareholder. The claim was pursued in the name of the claimant by Slater as its solicitor and principal . .
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 . .
Cited – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Limited v Todd and Todd, Bilgola Enterprises Ltd and Lambton Quay Books Ltd PC 7-Oct-2002
PC (New Zealand) The claimants asserted that the respondents had wrongly terminated their franchise licence. The agreement was subject to the New South Wales law requiring good faith, but the court had not had . .
Cited – Eagleson v Liddell CA 2-Feb-2001
The court may make costs orders in respect of any recourse the parties may have to an alternative dispute resolution procedure. The costs order included the costs of a mediation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Company

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258489

SES Contracting Ltd and others v UK Coal Plc and others: CA 26 Jul 2007

A respondent to an application to produce documents before proceedings are instituted should normally have its costs of so doing, but where it unreasonably opposed such a request, it may not be awarded all those costs.

Judges:

Waller LJ VP, Moore-Bick LJ, Moses LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 791, Times 16-Oct-2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258400

Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S (Costs): PatC 27 Jun 2007

The parties disputed the patentability of an anti-depressant drug Citalopram (Prozac).
Held: the claims were invalid for insufficiency.

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1606 (Pat), [2007] RPC 729

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1 2

Citing:

Applied – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – H Lundbeck A/S v Generics (UK) Ltd and others CA 10-Apr-2008
The court heard an appeal against a finding that a patent for a chemical compound was invalid for insufficiency.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Enough information to ‘work the invention’ meant in order to make the product. . .
At First Instance – Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S HL 25-Feb-2009
Patent properly granted
The House considered the patentability of a chemical product, citalopram made up of two enantiomers, as opposed to the process of its creation, questioning whether it could be new or was insufficient within the 1977 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258181

Power v Panasonic (UK) Limited: EAT 9 Mar 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs. Costs order. Permissible option applying 2 stage exercise under R14(1) 2001 ET Rules.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0439 – 04 – 0903, UKEAT/0439/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

Cited – Telephone Information Services v Wilkinson EAT 1991
The employee was dismissed. His employers offered to pay to him andpound;9,699, the maximum sum he could have been awarded if the matter went to the tribunal, but made no admission of liability. He rejected the offer, saying that he wanted the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.257332

Fosberry and Another v Revenue and Customs: ChD 22 May 2007

The claimant appealed against an order setting at nil his costs after the court found that his agreement with his solicitors as to payment infringed the relative regulations.

Judges:

Blackburne J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1512 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations of 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Fosberry and Another v Revenue and Customs VDT 28-Jul-2005
COSTS – Indemnity basis – Commissioners accepted that taxpayers’ appeal succeeded – Commissioners offered to pay taxpayers’ costs – Taxpayers applied for indemnity costs on grounds that Commissioners had changed their reasons for original decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254482

Bullmore, Regina (on the Application of) v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust: CA 8 Jun 2007

Renewed application for protective costs order.

Judges:

Hughes LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 609

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Bullmore and Another v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust Admn 9-Jul-2007
Challenge to Trust’s decision to close local hospital. . .
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: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253687

Equitas Ltd and Another v Horace Holman and Company Ltd: ComC 27 Apr 2007

A principal or employer is entitled to delivery up of original documents (or other property) retained or removed by an agent or employee and relating to transactions done as agent.

Judges:

Andrew Smith J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 903 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Equitas Ltd and Another v Horace Holman and Company Ltd and Another ComC 3-Oct-2008
The court considered the addition of a defendant under the 1981 Act after the main judgment had been unsatisfied on the insolvency of the first defendant. . .
Cited – Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv v Adkins and Another CA 19-Jul-2013
The court was asked whether the appellant company was entitled to an order requiring its former Chief Executive Officer, after the termination of his appointment, to give it access to the content of emails relating to its business affairs, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Agency

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251543

Madurasinghe v Penguin Electronics (A Firm): CA 13 Jan 1993

A taxation review is a rehearing by the circuit judge, exercising his own discretion. It is not the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jan-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 989

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 38(24)(6), Solicitors Act 1974 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.83292

Hossaini v Eds Recruitment Ltd (T/A JandC Recruitment) and Another (Practice and Procedure : New Evidence On Appeal : Costs): EAT 16 May 2019

The claimant (who described himself as a Muslim of South Africa /Turkish/Iranian origin) was employed by the First Respondent as an agency worker and had been assigned to the Second Respondent as a driver. He pursued ET claims of race and religion/belief discrimination and harassment, relating to comments made by other workers, alleging they had called him ‘babaji’, which he said was an inherently discriminatory term, and ‘fucking Muslim’. He also made a claim of victimisation when his placement with the Second Respondent was terminated. It was admitted that the term ‘babaji’ was used but the Respondents relied on a translation of that word, obtained by a manager of the First Respondent (Mrs Mears), which suggested it had no racial or religious connotation. Seeing that as the best direct evidence available, the ET rejected the Claimant’s case that the use of this term amounted to racial or religious harassment. The ET also rejected the Claimant’s evidence that the term ‘fucking Muslim’ was used. As for the victimisation complaint, the ET found there had been diminution in the need for drivers and the termination of the Claimant’s placement was unrelated to his complaints of harassment.
On the dismissal of the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent applied for costs. The ET considered the without prejudice correspondence relating to settlement discussions between the parties and took the view that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in the negotiations, such that it was appropriate to make an award of costs of pounds 10,000 for each the Respondents.
Subsequent to the ET hearing, the Claimant approached the translators used by Mrs Mears and was forwarded a copy of the translation provided to the First Respondent, which included a further possible translation of ‘babaji’ stating it was an offensive term related to race /religion. This new evidence suggested the document relied on before the ET had been doctored to remove this alternative translation. The Claimant applied to the ET for reconsideration of its decision, making a number of points but including clear reference to this new evidence. The ET, however, rejected the reconsideration application under 72(1) of the ET Rules 2013.
The Claimant appealed against (1) the ET’s substantive decision on his claims and the award of costs; and (2) the refusal of his reconsideration application.
Held: allowing the appeals
The new evidence relied on by the Claimant met the tests laid down in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489: specifically, it was apparently credible, it was also relevant and would probably have had an important influence on the hearing – not only as to the possible meaning of ‘babaji’
and the claim of harassment in that regard but also going to the issue of credibility more generally, and it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the ET hearing. Although the translation of the term ‘babaji’ had been in issue, the Claimant had no reason to doubt that the document produced by Mrs Mears was genuine, he had been entitled to expect that the Respondents would comply with their disclosure obligation and produce a complete and unaltered set of documents, and the requirement to exercise due diligence in the search for evidence could not extend to requiring a party to investigate the veracity and reliability of every document produced by opposing parties.
On the Claimant’s application for reconsideration, the ET had demonstrated no engagement with the new evidence point and had failed to apply Ladd v Marshall. Had it done so, it would have been bound to find that the Claimant had met the three-stage test (see above).
The Claimant’s appeals on the basis of this ‘fresh evidence’ would thus be allowed. In the circumstances, the appropriate course was for the claims to be remitted to a differently constituted ET for re-hearing and it would be for that ET to reach a final determination on the credibility of the new evidence that the Claimant had adduced and to assess the relevance of that material in the underlying proceedings.
Given the potential importance of the new evidence to questions of credibility, it was hard to see how the ET’s earlier costs decision could stand. In any event, the ET had erred in having regard to without prejudice correspondence that had not been ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ (Reed Executive plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 3026 applied). Yet further, the ET’S reasoning did not demonstrate an exercise of discretion in determining whether it was appropriate to make an award of costs in this case, the ET having apparently considered this ‘therefore’ followed from its decision that its costs jurisdiction was engaged (Avoola v Christopher Fellowship UKEAT/0508/13 applied). The appeal against the costs decision would also be allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0297 – 18 – 1605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Costs

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.639214

Koo Golden East Mongolia (A Body Corporate) v Bank of Nova Scotia and others: QBD 20 May 2008

Application for wasted costs order against solicitors.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1120 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.267993

Garrett v Halton Borough Council: CA 16 Mar 2007

The defendants argued that the conditional fee agreement in use by the claimant’s solicitors was void and so in breach of the rules.
Held: In assessing whether there was any ‘interest’ for the purposes of the Regulation, the court looked to the legislative history as an aid to the interpretation of the Regulations, citing the Lord Chancellor’s paper of February 2000 entitled Conditional Fees: Sharing the Risks of Litigation: The Government’s Conclusions Following Consultation were as follows: ‘If the legal representative recommends a particular product, but also has an interest in doing so, for example because he or she will receive a commission or is a member of the insurer’s panel of solicitors, then this must be disclosed to the client’.
Dyson LJ rejected a submission that the word interest in regulation 4(2)(e)((ii) should be construed narrowly so as to mean only a direct financial interest such as commission, ie a direct profit arising from payment of the premium, saying: ‘Nor do we accept that the Regulations should be construed narrowly because of their potentially draconian effect on solicitors. The purpose of the Regulations is to protect clients, not the financial interests of solicitors. In our judgment, the Regulations should be construed by giving the plain language in which they are expressed its normal and natural meaning. We do not accept that the word ‘interest’ is ambiguous. For the reasons that we shall give, it seems to us to be clear that it includes membership of a panel such as the Ainsworth panel.’
For the purposes of regulation 4, a solicitor has an interest if a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would think that the existence of the interest might affect the advice given by the solicitor to his client.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ, Dyson LJ, Sir Henry Brooke

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 278, [2007] 1 WLR 554

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Garrett v Halton Borough Council CA 18-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 9-Mar-2006
The claimant said that the defendant had accused her of falsifying hospital waiting statistics. The defendant pleaded justification.
Held: There were stark differences in the evidence given by different witnesses. Nevertheless the evidence . .
Cited – Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .

Cited by:

Approved – Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd; Jones v Attrill etc CA 11-Dec-2008
The defendants sought to argue that the conditional fee arrangement used by the claimant’s solicitors had been void under the 2000 regulations. They claimed that the solicitors had failed to disclose an interest in the policies sold.
Held: No . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250980

Jackson and others v Thakrar and others (No.4): TCC 22 Mar 2007

Judge Coulson reviewed the authorities on causation in relation to third party costs orders and said: ‘Plainly, in a Section 51 application, what matters is whether the funding provided by the non-party caused the applicant to incur costs which he would not otherwise have incurred. That must be the relevant test on causation . . If the Section 51 applicant would have incurred the relevant costs in any event, whether the funded party was funded by the non-party or not, then it would be wrong in principle to make a Section 51 order.’

Judges:

Peter Coulson QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 626 (TCC), [2007] BPIR 367, [2007] BLR 241, [2008] 1 All ER 601

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 18-Apr-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order.
Held: The court only has jurisdiction to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250461

Simion v Brown: ChD 14 Mar 2007

Remuneration of trustee – amount claimed exhausting assets realised. The court approved and applied the Practice Statement 2004. David Richards J said: ‘The task for the court is to arrive at a level of remuneration which balances the various criteria of the value of the service rendered, the proportionality of remuneration and a fair and reasonable remuneration for the work properly undertaken, as these criteria are explained in the Practice Statement. The result must resolve the conflict which may in a particular case exist between these criteria. The conflict is likely to be the more acute in cases such as the present, where substantial costs have been incurred in relation to a relatively small estate.’

Judges:

David Richards J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 511 (Ch), [2007] BPIR 412

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250025