Category: Costs

Papera Traders Co Ltd and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd. and Another: SCCO 17 Sep 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 9018 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Papera Traders Co Ltd and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd and Another ComC 7-Feb-2002
. .
See Also – Papera Traders Co Limited and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Limited, The Keihin Co Limited QBD 7-Feb-2002
A fire destroyed the ‘Eurasian Dream’ while in port. It was carrying cars, a fire in which got out of control. It was claimed that the ship managers had been negligent. The bill of lading contracts in the present case incorporated either the Hague . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201850

Amoco (UK) Exploration Company and others v British American Offshore Ltd: ComC 12 Dec 2000

Judges:

Langley J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 212 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Amoco (Uk) Exploration Company v British American Offshore Ltd ComC 16-Nov-2001
. .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201689

Stena Rederi Aktiebolag, Stena Line Aktiebolag v Irish Ferries Ltd.: CA 13 Feb 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others CA 16-Dec-2004
Following its earlier main judgment in the case, the court made use of the CPR to award costs on an appeal. The overall result had been that the patent was found to be valid but not infringed. There had been huge costs. Smithkline sought costs on an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201575

Currey v Currey: CA 8 Dec 2003

Appeals against ancillary relief orders and costs orders. The husband complained that the judge had in effect taken over the case asking leading questions of the parties.
Held: The judge’s task in a family matter was to obtain an accurate picture of the parties positions, and for that purpose had the power and possibly a duty to examine witnesses to achieve that end.

Judges:

Thorpe, Buxton, Neiberger LJJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1974, Times 26-Nov-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Currey v Currey CA 18-Oct-2006
Where one party in an ancillary relief claim was not entitled to legal aid, but showed a need for legal representation which he or she could not afford, the court could make an order requiring the other party to make a costs allowance. The nature of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201579

Pegler Ltd v Wang (Uk) Ltd and Another: CA 18 Jun 2001

Costs had been awarded against the third party, the parent company of the defendant. Leave to appeal was sought.
Held: It was arguable that the judge had not taken into account properly the interest of the company in protecting the interests of creditors and not just itself. Leave was given.

Judges:

Kay LJ, Keene LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1019

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Feb-2000
Standard Conract – Wide Exclusions, Apply 1977 Act
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages.
Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Damages, Costs

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201169

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.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 155

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Arbitration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200802

Cel Group Ltd v Nedlloyd Lines UK Ltd and Another: CA 18 Dec 2003

The defendant sought indemnity costs with interest at an enhanced rate. It had made on offer of settlement which was rejected. CEL objected that the defendant had the benefit of a conditional fee agreement.
Held: The conditional fee agreement was as to the solicitors costs, but not for counsel. Costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis. Parties should know where they stood, and whether an earlier offer had been rescinded, but too much should not be expected of a defendant merely trying to maintain the benefit of a judgment it already had, and particularly so in the case of an all or nothing appeal such as this. The conditional fee agreement had no special status at different stages.

Judges:

Waller, Hale, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

Times 02-Jan-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Costs appeal – CEL Group Ltd v Nedlloyd Lines UK Ltd and Another CA 26-Nov-2003
. .
Cited – P and O Nedlloyd BV Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg v Utaniko Limited/East West Corporation (No 2) CA 19-Feb-2003
The claimants had made a Part 36 offer at first instance, but the matter was appealed. Having won at appeal they sought their costs on an indemnity basis of the appeal also.
Held: If a party wished to protect itself by a Part 36 offer, it must . .

Cited by:

See also – CEL Group Ltd v Nedlloyd Lines UK Ltd and Another CA 26-Nov-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.190131

Mackenzie v Mackenzie: HL 16 May 1895

Evidence on which, in an action of divorce for desertion brought by a husband, it was held (in aff. judgment of Second Division) that the wife had Proved S vitia On The Part of The Husband Such As Would Have Entitled Her To A Decree of Separation, and Therefore That The Husband Was Not Entitled To Decree of Divorce.
Opinion by Lord Watson, that section 11 of the Conjugal Rights Act of 1861, which provides ‘that it shall not be necessary, prior to any action for divorce, to institute against the defender any action of adherence,’ was not intended to alter the substance of the older statute law, but merely to simplify procedure, and that ‘reasonable cause’ in the sense of the Act 1573, cap. 55, was simply such cause as would have afforded a good answer to an action for adherence.
Question, whether there might not be circumstances affording a sufficient defence to an action for adherence which yet would not establish the right to a decree of separation.
A husband having appealed unsuccessfully to the House of Lords against an interlocutor of the Court of Session assoilzieing his wife from the conclusions of an action of divorce for desertion which he had brought against her, the wife, although having separate estate, was allowed costs, to be taxed as between agent and client.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor Lord Watson Lord Ashbourne Lord Macnaghten Lord Morris

Citations:

[1895] UKHL 455, 32 SLR 455

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.634058

In Re Eastwood: CA 1975

The conventional method appropriate to taxing the bill of a solicitor in private practice is also appropriate for the bill of an in-house solicitor in all but special cases where it is reasonably plain that that method will infringe the indemnity principle. Such a special case will arise where a sum can be identified, different from that produced by the conventional approach, which is adequate to cover the actual cost incurred in doing all the work done. Such a sum may be identified by concession or, by the factual assessment of the taxing tribunal itself: but that possibility does not justify a detailed investigation in every case. The court warned as to the impracticality and undesirability of requiring a breakdown of all the activities and expenses of an in-house solicitor’s department: a process that, in the world of practical justice in which the taxation process moves, the adoption of the conventional approach was designed to avoid.

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1975] Ch 112

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Richard John Cole v British Telecommunications Plc CA 4-Jul-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.231260

Wiltshire v Powell and others (Costs): CA 7 May 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Latham Lady Justice Arden Mr Justice Holman

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 626

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .

Cited by:

See also – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.197969

R and Another v A: FD 11 May 2011

The applicants wished to withdraw the proceedings: the respondent wanted them to be dismissed. The respondent also said that the applicants should be ordered to pay his costs. The applicants said there should be no order as to costs.

Judges:

Wall P

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1158 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.439741

Locke v Camberwell Health Authority: CA 23 May 1991

The court discussed the relative duties of solicitor and counsel. Taylor LJ set out the principles that: 1) In general a solicitor, is entitled to rely upon the advice of counsel properly instructed;
2) For a solicitor, without special experience in a particular field, to rely on counsel’s advice is to make normal and proper use of the Bar;
3) However the solicitor must not do so blindly but must exercise his independent judgment. If he thinks that counsel’s advice is obviously or glaringly wrong, he is under a duty to reject it;
4) Although a solicitor should not assist a litigant where prosecution of the claim amounts to an abuse of process, it is not his duty to assess the result of a conflict of evidence or impose a pre-trial screen on a litigant’s claim.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 Med LR 249

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Justices of Luton Family Proceedings Court; Her Honour Judge Pearce of Luton County Court; Director of Social Services of Bedfordshire County Council ex parte Abdul Rahman and Azra Bi Admn 16-Dec-1996
In the course of urgent children proceedings, counsel advised solicitors inappropriately to seek judicial review of a court decision. The application was persisted with despite warnings from the respondents that they intended to seek a wasted costs . .
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 . .
Cited – McFaddens (A Firm) v Platford TCC 30-Jan-2009
The claimant firm of solicitors had been found negligent, and now sought a contribution to the damages awarded from the barrister defendant. They had not managed properly issues as to their clients competence to handle the proceedings.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.179861

Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2): CA 1 Apr 1991

In ancillary relief proceedings, the husband had not made frank disclosure of his assets. The final Calderbank offer of andpound;600,000 was made only the day before the substantive hearing. The offer was rejected. The judge awarded the wife a lump sum of andpound;1 million. The judge made no order as to costs after the date when the wife’s solicitors had rejected an earlier, lower, offer by the husband. From that date both sides had acted reasonably. The wife appealed. No counter-offer had been made by the wife.
Held: The starting point, is that costs prima facie follow the event but in family cases this rule may be displaced more easily, and it is unusual to order costs in children cases. For financial relief the applicant has to make the application in order to obtain an order. Orders by consent; usually include the applicant’s costs. If contested and the applicant succeeds, where money available and no special factors, the applicant spouse is likely to obtain an order for costs. The behaviour of one party, such as in material non-disclosure of documents, may be a material factor. In some few cases the assets are substantial and an order for costs can (if appropriate) be made. The court rules reflect the need for Calderbank offers, subject to conditions, to have teeth. The respondent must make a serious offer worthy of consideration. If he does so, the applicant should accept or reject the offer and make clear any counter-offer. Both should negotiate. There is a very wide discretion in the court in awarding costs. Many reasons may affect costs including material non-disclosure, and delay or excessive zeal. The need to use all the available money to house the spouse and children of the family may be constraints. It would be inappropriate to constrain that wide of discretion. But the starting point in a case where there has been an offer is that, prima facie, if the applicant receives no more or less than the offer made, she/he is at risk not only of not being awarded costs, but also of paying the costs of the other party after communication of the offer and a reasonable time to consider it. ‘I cannot, for my part, see why there is any difference in principle between the position of a party who fails to obtain an order equal to the offer made and pays the costs, and a party who fails by the offer to meet the award made by the court. In the latter case prima facie costs should follow the event, as they would do in a payment into court, with the proviso that other factors in the Family Division may alter that prima facie position.’
Russell LJ: ‘In his opening submissions to this court, counsel for the husband invited us to lay down guidelines which would, he said, be of assistance to those charged with the responsibility of deciding what, after divorce, is the appropriate level of lump sum payments in cases where very substantial capital assets are available. I do not think that such an exercise is possible. The guidelines already exist. Section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is the enabling provision for an order for the payment of a lump sum. Section 25, as amended by the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, in terms, requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case and subsection (2), under no less than eight sub-paragraphs, sets out the matters to which the court in particular shall have regard.
In the individual case, some of those matters will assume greater importance than others and, indeed, the facts of this case well illustrate that proposition. In my judgment in this case we are concerned with a wholly exceptional set of circumstances . . . . ‘

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ, Russell LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 FLR 233, [1992] Fam 40, Times 01-May-1991, [1992] 1 All ER 267

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Calderbank v Calderbank CA 5-Jun-1975
Letter Without Prejudice Save as to Costs
Husband and wife disputed provision under 1973 Act, and a summons under section 17 of the 1882 Act. The wife had offered to transfer a house to H occupied by his mother, worth about pounds 12,000, in return for him leaving the matrimonial home. He . .
Cited – Singer (formerly Sharegin) v Sharegin 1984
In family proceedings, the starting point for the award of costs is that they prima facie follow the event but that presumption may be displaced much more easily than, and in circumstances which would not apply, in other divisions of the High Court. . .
Cited – McDonnell v McDonnell CA 1977
In family proceedings, a costs letter had been written in the form suggested in Calderbank.
Held: The court accepted and endorsed the practice suggested by Cairns LJ. Ormrod LJ said: ‘The important factor which distinguishes this case is the . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Norris v Norris, Haskins v Haskins CA 28-Jul-2003
The court considered how orders for costs were to be made in ‘big money’ cases.
Held: There were two sets of rules. Cases should be considered by first applying the Civil Procedure Rules. This would allow the court to consider the full range . .
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 – In re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
Cited – Re S (A Child) SC 25-Mar-2015
The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.182186

Q v Q (Family proceedings: Costs order): FD 21 Jun 2002

The provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules as to costs in Family division proceedings did not replace entirely the old rules after April 26, 1999, and the Leary case was not superceded. The requirement for summary assessment of costs for hearings less than a day did not abrogate the power to make such an assessment in longer cases, and indeed under the rules, the possibility should be considered in every case. In family cases, in particular, detailed assessments tended only to prolong bitterness.

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-2002, Gazette 21-Aug-2002

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Superceded – Leary v Leary CA 1987
The husband had obstructed ancillary relief proceedings, leading to prolonged hearings. The judge ordered a gross sum in costs, without allowing the husband to be heard first.
Held: Under RSC Ord 62 r9(4) a judge could award a gross sum in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Family, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.174326

Regina v Supreme Court Taxing Office Ex Parte John Singh and Co: QBD 3 May 1995

A Taxing Master’s refusal of a certificate for point of principle on taxation is reviewable. Henry LJ: ‘Counsel for the Taxing Master conceded that such a jurisdiction existed but submitted that it should be restricted to cases where there had been a real injustice. I agree with both that concession and, in general terms, with the limitation on it. In his refusal to certify, the Taxing Master was exercising a ‘strong’ discretion entrusted under the statutory scheme to him. The cases where the supervisory court could reverse a failure to certify would, in the circumstances, be very rare indeed. In those circumstances, in my judgment, we should treat the complaints made in the judicial review as a deemed application under the inherent jurisdiction of the court and I, for my part, would do so.’

Judges:

Henry LJ

Citations:

Times 03-May-1995, [1997] 1 Costs LR 49

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1969 23(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Brewer, Regina (on the Application of) v Supreme Court Costs Office Admn 27-Jul-2006
The defendant had been acquitted. Orders had been made both for payment of his legal costs, and also for re-imbursement of his own costs. The defendant was accused of serious fraud, and had engaged an American attorney to assist him before . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88133

Re Moss, Larke v Nugus: CA 1979

Executors To Give Information Avoiding Expense

(Decided in approximately 1979) The signature of the testatrix, an elderly woman, was distinctly wobbly, the will contained a gift, as it was put by the trial judge, ‘in favour of persons on whom the testatrix is dependent’, and the executor, who was a solicitor who had been responsible for drawing up the will, had taken the view that the defendants were not entitled to a copy of it or to any explanation of the circumstances in which it had been drawn up.
Held: Where there is a potential dispute over the validity of the Will, the executors should make every effort to avoid costly litigation. One of those measures was to provide full and frank information as to how the Will came to be made. The costs of a defendant who had unsuccessfully put in issue the question of knowledge and approval by the testator of a will were nevertheless left to come out of the estate.
Brandon LJ said: ‘Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider, not only the recommendation itself, but the principle upon which the recommendation is based, and the duty of a solicitor when faced with matters of this kind. The recommendation is no doubt of importance, but even if it had not been made certain principles would apply to the matter, and in my judgement the principle which applied is that, when there was litigation about a will, every effort should be made by the executors to avoid costly litigation if that can be avoided and, when there are circumstances of suspicion attending the execution and making a will, one of the measures which can be taken is to give full and frank information to those who might have an interest in attacking the will, as to how the will came to be made.’
and
‘Where a serious dispute arises as to the validity of a will, beyond the mere entering of a caveat and the solicitor’s knowledge makes them a material witness, then the solicitor should make available a statement of their evidence regarding the execution of the will and the circumstances surrounding it to anyone concerned in the proving or challenging of that will, whether or not the solicitor acted for those who were propounding the will.’

Judges:

Brandon LJ

Citations:

[2000] WTLR 1033, (1979) CA p337

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Key and Another v Key and Others ChD 5-Mar-2010
The will was challenged for want of testamentary capacity. The testator was 89 years old, and the will was made within a week of the death of his wife of 65 years and without the solicitor having taken any proper steps to satisfy himself as to the . .
Cited – Mausner and Another v Mincher and Another ChD 26-Apr-2006
. .
Cited – Jarrom and Another v Sellars ChD 24-Apr-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs

Leading Case

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.266581

The Accident Group Test Cases; Sharratt v London Central Bus Company and Other Cases: CA 20 May 2004

The Accident Group operated a system whereby they introduced potential claimants to personal injury lawyers, arranging costs insurance for them. They appealed a finding that the payment was made in breach of the 1990 code, and was not recoverable.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The company making the risk assessment operated as agent of the solicitor, but the obligation to pay arose before a solicitor-client relationship was created. It was therefore a referral fee, and irrecoverable.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice May

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 575, Gazette 10-Jun-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 29, Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sharratt v London Central Bus Co and Other Cases SCCO 27-Nov-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197056

Texuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc: ComC 17 May 2004

Where the court concludes that it may be effectively impossible to enforce an order for payment of costs, then this situation would provide ‘an objective justification for the court exercising its discretion to make an order for payment of the full amount of the costs likely to be ordered against a claimant if unsuccessful in the litigation’.

Judges:

Gross J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1102 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 25.13(1)(a) 25.13(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
Cited – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 7-Mar-2006
The claimant resided in Romania, and sought damages for libel. The magazine had obtained an order for security for costs. An offer had been made to cover the sum ordered, and no stifling could now happen.
Held: Any order for security costs in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197077

McPherson v BNP Paribas SA (London Branch): CA 14 May 2004

The claimant withdrew his claim in the Employment Tribunal. By then, his employer had incurred very substantial legal costs. He appealed against the order for costs against him.
Held: The tribunal had wrongly asked whether the withdrawal of the case was unreasonable. It should have asked whether the case as a whole was reasonably pursued. It was nevertheless open to the tribunal to find, on the facts, that the proceedings as a whole had been conducted unreasonably.
Mummery LJ stated: ‘The principal of relevance means that the tribunal must have regard to the nature, gravity and effect of the unreasonable conduct as factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion but that is not the same as requiring [the receiving party] to prove that specific unreasonable conduct by [the paying party] caused particular costs to be incurred’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Thorpe Mr Justice Bennett

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 569, Times 31-May-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 616, [2004] ICR 1398, [2004] 4 Costs LR 596, [2004] 3 All ER 266, [2004] IRLR 558, [2004] EWHC 90034 (Costs), [2004] ICR 1938

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – McPherson v BNP Paribas Branch EAT 28-May-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mcpherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) SCCO 13-Jun-2004
. .
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 – Cass v Amt-Sybex (Northern Ireland) Ltd NIIT 26-Jan-2011
The decision of the tribunal is that the respondents’ application for costs is refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197001

Winter v Winter: CA 10 Nov 2000

Brooke LJ said: ‘before the Civil Procedure Rules came into effect . . if a claimant substantially succeeded he was likely to be awarded an order for costs even though he failed on certain issues. The new Rules provide a break from that tradition and enable a court to do greater justice if a party has caused court costs to be expended on an issue on which he ultimately fails.’

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

November 10, 2000, unreported

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership CA 31-Jul-2002
The defendant firm of solicitors appealed an order for costs against it based upon a percentage calculation. They sought an issues based costs order.
Held: Where there was insufficient information upon which to calculate an issues based costs . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others ChD 23-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others ChD 23-Jan-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.181794

Crystall v Crystall: CA 1963

When considering an order that a legally aided party should pay all or part of any costs, one of the circumstances, and a compelling circumstance, is the means of the party himself. Whatever one may think of the conduct of a party it would still not be right to make an order for costs against him which was unreasonable having regard to his means.

Judges:

Willmer LJ

Citations:

[1963] 1 WLR 574, [1963] 2 All ER 330

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1949 2(2)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fowler De Pledge (A Firm) v Smith CA 20-May-2003
The appellant sought two permissions to appeal. Having at one stage been legally aided in proceedings, a claim for his solicitors costs had been compromised. The court records were imperfect. It was not clear whether a circuit judge sitting as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.182737

Inline Logistics Ltd v UCI Logistics Ltd: CA 27 Mar 2002

The claimant sought payment as part of its costs of the legal expenses insurance premium it had paid in the period between April 1 and July 2000. The respondent said it had not complied with the rules. This was required by the Act.
Held: The Act came into effect on April 1st, but the rules did not apply until July 3rd. Between times, there was no possibility of complying with the rules. The transitional rules only applied to those who had not yet commenced proceedings. Since there were no rules in place to comply with, it could not be said that the claimant had failed to comply with them.

Judges:

Mr Justice Ferris

Citations:

Times 02-May-2002, Gazette 10-May-2002

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 29, Civil Procedure Rules 44.15, Civil Procedure (Amendment No 3) Rules 2000 (SI 2000 No 1317)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.170210

CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others: CA 13 Feb 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 117

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg CA 15-Jun-2001
Application for leave to appeal, for an extension of time to appeal, and for a stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal. . .
See Also – CIBC Mellon Trust Company and Others v Stolzenberg and Others ChD 3-Feb-2003
Application to set aside judgments entered on failure to comply with ‘unless’ orders.
Held: Etherton J said: ‘The Court of Appeal has laid down guidance as to the approach of the Court when considering an application for relief from sanctions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195634

Lavelle v Lavelle and others: CA 11 Feb 2004

Property had been purchased in the name of of the appellant by her father. She appealed a finding that the presumption of advancement had been rebutted.
Held: The appeal failed. The presumption against advancement had been rebutted on the evidence. The court at first instance should keep a record of why a costs decision was made, particularly where the costs were disproportionate to the values at stake.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 223, Times 09-Mar-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chettiar v Chettiar PC 14-Feb-1962
(Malaya) A father, in registering shares in the names of his children, had transferred the beneficial interest in those shares to them. Many years later the father had treated the shares as his own. The question arose as to whether this fact . .
Cited – Finch v Finch 1808
The presumption of advancement in a gift may be rebutted but should not ‘give way to slight circumstances’. . .
Cited – Collier v Collier CA 30-Jul-2002
Fraudulent Intent Negated Trust
The daughter claimant sought possession of business premises from her father who held them under leases. He claimed an order that the property was held in trust for him. The judge that at the time the properties were conveyed, the father had been . .
Cited – Pettitt v Pettitt HL 23-Apr-1969
A husband and wife disputed ownership of the matrimonial home in the context of the presumption of advancement.
Lord Reid said: ‘These considerations have largely lost their force under present conditions, and, unless the law has lost its . .
Cited – Tribe v Tribe CA 26-Jul-1995
Illegal intent alone rebutted presumption
The plaintiff held 499 of the 500 issued shares of a company. In 1986 he wished to retire and transferred 30 shares to his son, one of four children, who was to take over the business. In 1988 he was worried about a bill for dilapidations, and, to . .
Cited – Collier v Collier CA 30-Jul-2002
Fraudulent Intent Negated Trust
The daughter claimant sought possession of business premises from her father who held them under leases. He claimed an order that the property was held in trust for him. The judge that at the time the properties were conveyed, the father had been . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kyriakides v Pippas 2004
When considering the trusts on which land is held, and where there is no declaration of trust, the court puts itself in the position of a jury and considers all the circumstances of the case, so as to arrive at the purchaser’s real intention: ‘I . .
Cited – Crossley v Crossley CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed an order that a house was to be held in equal shares with her son. The house was registered in their joint names, but the transfer contained no declaration of the interests. The house had been originally bought by the mother . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Costs

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194423

Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v Axa Global Risks (Uk) Ltd and others: CA 10 Mar 2004

The Kastor Too had been lost in a fire. After substantial litigation, the insurers now appealed an order finding a constructive total loss (it was beyond economic repair or recovery). They had said that it was already beyond repair immediately before it sank. The judge had held that where an actual total loss immediately followed a constructive loss, the insured should recover.
Held: The insurer’s appeal was dismissed, but the court should be careful about adopting too close an analysis of liability for costs. A settlement offer had been made, and the costs order was adjusted to reflect the increased costs incurred by non-acceptance.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rix Mr Justice Neuberger Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 277, Times 29-Apr-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 60(2)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others ComC 17-Mar-2003
The court was able to make costs orders which differentiated between different stages and elements of a case. This might well result, as here, in a situation of a succesful claimant being ordered to pay 80% of the defendant’s costs, because of costs . .
Appeal from – Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others (‘Kastor Too’) ComC 4-Dec-2002
The claimant ship owner and its mortgagee sued the defendant insurer after the loss of the insured vessel, through fire. The insurers replied that the damage by fire was so extensive that the vessel was beyond repair when she sank, and was therefore . .
Cited – Cie Noga d’Importation et d’Exportation SA v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd 2002
Where one party appeals a judgment on its merits, the respondent is then entitled to seek to support it, even without needing further permission, on further grounds. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194413

Rowland v Environment Agency: CA 22 Jan 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 37

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Rowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .

Cited by:

See also – Rowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193488

Regina (Geologistics) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme: CA 18 Dec 2003

The claimant had made a claim against an insurance company which was insolvent. The claim had been paid by the Scheme, and he now sought payment by them of the costs of the claim also.
Held: The costs were payable. The construction of the sections sought by the appellant was too narrow.

Judges:

Thorpe, Waller, Latham LJJ

Citations:

Times 15-Jan-2004, [2003] EWCA Civ 1877

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Policyholder (Protection) Act 1975 6(4) 6(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Geologistics Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Admn 4-Mar-2003
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Geologistics Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Admn 4-Mar-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193437

Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others: ChD 23 Jan 2004

Judges:

Lindsay J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 63 (Ch), HCO100644

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ford v GKR Construction and Others CA 22-Oct-1999
Where a party wished to put the other at risk of payment of costs by the making of an offer, it was vital that the other party should be made properly aware of any information available to decide on the offer. Under the new regime, it was not . .
Cited – Roache v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd 1998
In looking at questions of costs in libel actions it is often appropriate to consider, as a matter of substance and reality, who was the true winner in the proceedings. . .
Cited – AEI Redifusion Ltd v PPL 1999
The court described the appellate function in relation to the exrecise of judicial discretion on costs.
Held: ‘Before the court can interfere it must be shown that the judge has either erred in principle in his approach or has left out of . .
Cited – Winter v Winter CA 10-Nov-2000
Brooke LJ said: ‘before the Civil Procedure Rules came into effect . . if a claimant substantially succeeded he was likely to be awarded an order for costs even though he failed on certain issues. The new Rules provide a break from that tradition . .
Cited – Johnsey Estates and Limited v Secretary of State for Environment CA 11-Apr-2001
Chadwick LJ: ‘The principles applicable in the present case may, I think, be summarised as follows: (i) costs cannot be recovered except under an order of the court; (ii) the question whether to make any order as to costs – and, if so, what order – . .
Cited – Oksuzoglu v Kay and Another CA 26-Feb-1998
A party seeking not to obtain an up to date medical report when serving proceedings must obtain the consent of other side or of the court first. The Court asking itself as to costs, where far less is recovered, either generally or under a particular . .
Cited – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 24-Jun-2003
It had been argued by the claimant in written submissions (although not maintained orally) that an order for payment of pre-judgment interest on costs should never be made. As to an award of interest on costs:- ‘In any event in principle there seems . .
Cited – Jaura v Ahmed CA 21-Feb-2002
The applicant sought damages for the wrongful termination of her lease by the respondent. The landlords re-entered in default of payment of the rent. The premises had been sub-let, and she sought damages for the loss of rental profits.
Held: . .
Cited – Winter v Winter CA 10-Nov-2000
Brooke LJ said: ‘before the Civil Procedure Rules came into effect . . if a claimant substantially succeeded he was likely to be awarded an order for costs even though he failed on certain issues. The new Rules provide a break from that tradition . .
See Also – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd etc ChD 7-Nov-2003
The claimants had succeeded in a claim of distress occasioned by breach of confidence and breach of the Data Protection Act by the taking and selling of photographs from their wedding.
Held: As to losses, for the magazine who had bought the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192106

Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans: HL 1982

The Court found the probationer police constable to have been unlawfully induced to resign, but the court could not order his reinstatement. A power must be exercised by the precise person or body stated in the statute. Though courts may review the way in which decisions are reached, they will respect the margin of appreciation or discretion which a Chief Constable has. He knows through his officers the local situation, the availability of officers and his financial resources, and the other demands on the police in the area at different times. The House granted instead a declaration: ‘affirming that, by reason of his unlawfully induced resignation, he had thereby become entitled to the same rights and remedies, not including reinstatement, as he would have had if the chief constable had not unlawfully dispensed with his services under regulation 16(1).’
‘My Lords I must address myself later to the question of remedy. All that I would say at this moment is that it would, to my mind, be regrettable if a litigant who establishes that he has been legally wronged, and particularly in so important a matter as a pursuit of his chosen profession, has to be sent away from a court of justice empty handed save for an order for the recoupment of the expense to which he has been put in establishing a barren victory.’ and ‘An unsuccessful applicant whose challenge has nevertheless performed a public service may escape the usual costs burden.’
Lord Brightman: ‘Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power…. Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made.’

Judges:

Lord Brightman

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 1155, [1982] UKHL 10, (1982) 3 All ER 141

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans 2-Jan-1982
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Limited HL 2-Apr-1998
Chief Constable has a Wide Discretion on Resources
Protesters sought to prevent the appellant’s lawful trade exporting live animals. The police provided assistance, but then restricted it, pleading lack of resources. The appellants complained that this infringed their freedom of exports under . .
Cited – Regina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte DB Admn 17-Oct-1996
Sperm which had been taken from a dying and unconscious man may not be used for the later insemination of his surviving wife. The Act required his written consent.
Held: Community Law does not assist the Applicant. The question had been . .
See Also – Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans 2-Jan-1982
. .
Cited – Tataw, Regina (on the Application Of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal CA 18-Jun-2003
. .
Cited – Jhagroo v Teaching Service Commission PC 4-Dec-2002
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) . .
Cited – Kay, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police Admn 18-Jan-2010
Having succeeded in her claim as to the lawfulness of the decision of the defendant to end her appointment as a probationary constable, the claimant now sought an order mandating her continued employment by the defendant. She had been acquitted of . .
Cited – Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Administrative, Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192007

Hill v Bailey: ChD 25 Nov 2003

Costs orders had been made against each party in favour of the other. One was legally aided.
Held: Though the legally aided party was entitled to some protection against enforcement of an order for costs, he was not protected against the other party exercising a right of set off under the mutual costs orders. A set-off does not place the person against whom it is asserted under any obligation to pay, but merely reduces the amount that he can recover.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 05-Jan-2004, Gazette 15-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 All ER 1210, [2003] EWHC 2835 (Ch), [2004] 1 All ER 1210, [2004] CP Rep 24, [2004] 1 Costs LR 135

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – 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 – Hicks v Russell Jones and Walker 27-Oct-2000
. .

Cited by:

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.

Costs, Legal Aid, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190227

Digital Equipment Co Ltd and Others v Bower and Others: ChD 4 Dec 2003

The liquidators had lost their legal action, and had been ordered to pay the present claimants their costs. They sought payment out of an insolvency services account in competition with the solicitors for the liquidators.
Held: An award of costs was not a payment of ‘expenses incurred in the winding up’ and therefore the court had no discretion to order payment of the costs out of the fund. London Metallurgical established the primacy of the court order and this had been preserved in the rules, but the rules did not include provision for payment of costs to be paid by the liquidators under a court order.

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

Times 29-Dec-2003, Gazette 29-Jan-2004, [2003] EWHC 2895 (Ch), [2004] 1 All ER 577, [2004] 1 WLR 1678

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 112 156, Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986 No 1925) 4.218(1) 4.220(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re London Metallurgical Co 1985
A costs order made against liquidators arising from proceedings they had taken, will usually have priority over the general expenses of the action. The list of expenses said nothing about the costs of litigation incurred by the liquidator or awarded . .
Cited – Kahn and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; In re Toshoku Finance plc HL 20-Feb-2002
A company went into liquidation, being owed substantial sums by another company in the same group, but itself insolvent. A settlement did not include accrued interest, but was claimed to be taxed as if it had, and on an accruals basis. If so, was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190087

Dar International FEF Co v Aon Ltd: CA 10 Dec 2003

There had been at an earlier stage an order requiring security for costs to be provbided. That order had been discharged. The defendant sought to appeal, and for the purposes of that appeal theat the costs order be restored.
Held: The court had the power to consider such a re-instatement, for the appeal and for the action below, but one would not be made in this case.

Judges:

Mance LJ

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stabilad Limited v Stephens and Carter Limited CA 1-Apr-1998
Appeal from the refusal of Mr Lawrence Collins QC to order a stay preventing the payment out of court to the plaintiff, who had been successful in the action, of the sum of pounds 58,000 that it had paid into court by way of security for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189889

Malkinson v Trim: CA 13 Sep 2002

The court was asked: ‘is a solicitor who has been represented by his own firm in the successful defence of proceedings brought against him personally, entitled (under an order for costs in his favour) to the profit costs of his firm in defending those proceedings? ‘
Held: He was.

Judges:

Potter, Chadwick LJJ< Wall J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1273, [2003] CPLR 99, [2002] NPC 116, [2003] 1 WLR 463, [2003] 2 All ER 356, [2002] 3 Costs LR 515,, [2003] CP Rep 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court Admn 4-Jul-2014
The claimant solicitors had successfully challenged search warrants issued by the respondents and been awarded their costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188947

Thornley v Lang: CA 29 Oct 2003

The claimant had pursued the case under a collective conditional fee agreement, organised by her trade union. The defendant challenged an order for payment of the costs, arguing that under the indemnity principle, the claimant would be under no duty to pay costs, and that therefore there he was denied her claim by the indemnity principle.
Held: The claimant was under a duty to pay his legal costs, and therefore could recover his costs even against the indemnity principle. The agreement with the lawyers was a collective conditional fee agreement and therefore not covered by the main Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations.
Lord Phillips MR referred to cases where litigants are funded by third parties such as trade unions: ‘When defeated by such a litigant, unsuccessful parties have, on occasion, invoked the indemnity principle in an attempt to avoid paying costs. The argument advanced has been that the successful litigant is not liable for his costs and, therefore, has no right to recover them. The courts have had no truck with such arguments. They have defeated them by finding that, in the circumstances under consideration, the litigant comes under an independent obligation, albeit one that is unlikely to be enforced, to pay the fees of the solicitor who is acting for him’

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Tuckey, Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers MR

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1484, Times 31-Oct-2003, [2004] 1 Costs LR 91, [2004] 1 All ER 886, [2004] 1 WLR 378

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58, Collective Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 (2000 No 2988), Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 (2000 No 692)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187281

Simons Construction Limited v Aardvark Developments Limited: TCC 29 Oct 2003

It was implicit in paragraph 19 that a first adjudicator’s jurisdiction nonetheless continued indefinitely until one of the parties invoked paragraph 19(2).

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richard Seymour Q.C

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2474 (TCC), [2004] BLR 117

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ritchie Brothers (Pwc) Limited v David Philp (Commercials) Limited IHCS 24-Mar-2005
The adjudicator had delivered his decision out of time. The pursuer sought to enforce it. The defender aid that if it was delivered out of time it was void.
Held: The expiry of the time limit deprived the arbitrator of jursidcition to decide . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration, Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187280

Mount Cook Land Ltd and Another v Westminster City Council: CA 14 Oct 2003

The applicants had sought judicial review of the defendant’s grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former CandA building in Oxford Street. Though the application for leave to apply had been successful, and a full hearing took place, the judge awarded also the costs of the defendant in responding to the original and successful application.
Held: The order was a proper exercise of the judge’s discretion. Under the old rules applications could be made without fear of a costs order, but that had changed. Leach did not mean that an authority successfully resisting an application for leave should in principle recover its costs, but here there were exceptional reasons, including the fact that the applicant was financially sound, and had managed to obtain a fuller hearing at the application for leave stage. Courts should generally resist attempts to turn applications for leave into rehearsals for a full hearing. As to the applicant’s motives, ‘I do not say that considerations of a claimant’s motive in claiming judicial review could never be relevant to a court’s decision whether to refuse relief in its discretion, for example, where the pursuance of the motive in question goes so far beyond the advancement of a collateral purpose as to amount to an abuse of process. The court should, at the very least, be slow to have recourse to that species of conduct as a basis for discretionary refusal of relief’.
Auld LJ said: ‘judicial review applications by would-be developers or objectors to development in planning cases are, by their very nature, driven primarily by commercial or private motive rather than a high-minded concern for the public weal.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Jonathan Parker

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1346, Times 16-Oct-2003, [2004] 2 PandCR 22, [2004] 1 PLR 29

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 54 (Practice Direction 8.4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Leach) v Commissioner for Local Administration QBD 2-Aug-2001
The new rules now required a respondent to an application for judicial review, to prepare and file an acknowledgement of service. Where he was successful in defending, or resisting the application for leave, there is no reason in principle why he . .
Followed – Regina (Jones and Another) v North Warwickshire Borough Council CA 30-Mar-2001
When considering a planning application, it was only in exceptional circumstances that the authority should consider alternative sites. Those circumstances would be where the proposed development would involve such a conspicuous adverse impact, that . .

Cited by:

Cited – Phillips v First Secretary of State and others Admn 22-Oct-2003
The claimant had objected to the grant of permission to erect a mobile phone mast near her property. The issue was that she had not been given opportunity to comment upon the consideration of alternative sites.
Held: The consideration of . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 4-Nov-2003
The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the . .
Cited – Senior-Milne, Regina (On the Application of) v The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Admn 8-Sep-2009
The claimant was concerned that the Financial Service Authority had failed properly to supervise the de-mutualisation of the Scottish Widows insurance company, and had not identified a failure to disclose very substantial potential liabilities. He . .
Cited – Land Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) CA 18-Dec-2009
The claimants wanted planning permission to redevelop land. The defendant firm of solicitors, their tenants, had challenged the planning permission. The claimants alleged that that opposition was a tortious abuse because its true purpose was to . .
Preferred – 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.

Planning, Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186735

Stockinger v Highdorn Co Ltd and Ors: SCCO 5 Apr 2001

The Claimant, a highly qualified lawyer in several foreign jurisdictions, only acquired a practising certificate in this country in 1998. He was a successful commercial lawyer practising as a sole practitioner in the City of London, but in his ‘spare time’ was working on a revision of the Merchant Shipping Acts. In that connection he had accumulated a substantial and very distinctive personal library of books which he kept in his flat. When that flat had to be rewired the landlords asked him to put the books into a outbuilding, from which unfortunately they were taken and destroyed. He brought proceedings, acting in person throughout, claiming damages against those responsible, and succeeded to the extent of andpound;96,000, together with costs. Those costs were assessed by a Deputy Costs Judge over a four day period, spread over several months, and a number of difficult points arose, of which the Claimant wished to bring 25 on appeal. He was allowed to bring forward only five, and of these only three justify mention in this summary. The first is the hourly rate to be allowed to him for work done in the period prior to that in which he got an English practising certificate. The Deputy Costs Judge had allowed him andpound;90 per hour, being andpound;10 per hour less than two thirds of the hourly rate claimed. The Judge upheld the Deputy Costs Judge’s view that if the Defendant had chosen to instruct solicitors he would not have gone to a City firm for this sort of case, which was conducted in Clerkenwell County Court, but rather would have gone to a medium sized Holborn or West End firm. Nevertheless the Judge held that the Claimant was entitled to the full two thirds of what a solicitor would have charged, and there was no warrant for any reduction such as made by the Deputy Costs Judge.
The next point concerned time spent by the Claimant in preparing a schedule of lost books for the benefit of loss adjusters before the action was brought. The Deputy Costs Judge held that that work was done too far before the institution of proceedings to be recoverable as part of the costs of the proceedings, but the Judge on appeal took the opposite view.
The third point concerns the appropriate way to charge the hours spent in calculating the value of the lost books. The Claimant in fact used para-legals from his office at an hourly rate of andpound;75. However his own expert in evidence in the County Court proceedings had said that it was a mechanical exercise which could be conducted by someone of a lower clerical level. The Deputy Costs Judge allowed the higher rate, but for a far lower number of hours than claimed by the Claimant. On appeal the Judge, on advice from his assessors, held that the hourly rate claimed and allowed was too high, but that the hours allowed by the Deputy Costs Judge had been too few, and he substantially increased these accordingly, resulting in a small net increase for the claimant on this head of his appeal.
The final argument was that the Claimant was entitled to a much higher figure for costs overall than he had been allowed, based on a comment of Mr Justice Lightman in the case of Bank of Credit International SA (in liquidation) v Ali [2000] The Times, 2 March, where that Judge had said:
‘The costs order in favour of the successful party is generally to be adopted as calculated to achieve the ends of justice, but the court in any particular case might make a different order if on the facts of that case justice so required.’
The Judge in this appeal held that those words were not directed to an assessment of costs which had its own specific and clear rules, and concluded:
‘Whilst any Judge dealing with this matter is seeking to arrive at a just result it has to be obtained within the parameters of the Civil Procedure Rules when taken as a whole.’
On the question of the costs of the appeal the Judge awarded the Claimant 60% of these on the basis that his success in monetary terms had been relatively modest in relation to the substantial claims advanced on the appeal.

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 3, [2001] EWHC 9004 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185943

Argonaut Property Development Ltd v Collyer-Bristow (A Firm): SCCO 16 Oct 2001

CourtService The Claimant company, registered in the Isle of Man and acting throughout by their London agent Miss T, instructed the Defendant Solicitors in connection with proceedings brought against the Claimants by former tenants of property they owned in Clerkenwell. In total five bills were rendered by the Defendant to the Claimant, totalling andpound;7,425.61, including disbursements and VAT. Four of those bills were paid, but the fifth was not paid, and the Claimants succeeded in obtaining an order for detailed assessment thereof. That detailed assessment was conducted by a Deputy Costs Judge. After the principal persons concerned had given oral evidence before her, and been cross examined thereon, she found as a fact that Miss T had stipulated that the work should be handled by the Defendants by a solicitor, and in fact it had been handled by a Mr P, who was a legal executive. Accordingly, the Deputy Costs Judge assessed the Defendants final bill at nil, and directed the Defendants to repay the amount of the earlier bills, following the case of Pilbrow v Peerless De Rougemont. Then, late in the day, there was argument as to the quantum of the Claimants costs, they being represented on that occasion by a costs draftsman instructed by another firm of solicitors. It was ultimately agreed that as final figures were not available these would be submitted by the solicitors concerned, commented on by the Defendants, and that the Costs Judge would then make a decision on costs without the necessity for either party to attend before her again.
The Claimant’s schedule included claims for interest on the monies paid by the Claimants to the Defendants, but ordered to be repaid, together with claims for costs, both in respect of the period when the solicitors were on the record for the Claimant, and also an earlier period where Miss T acted on their behalf.
The Deputy Costs Judge disallowed claims for interest, on the basis that they had not been claimed in the original proceedings, and made certain other reductions in the claim endorsing her brief reasons onto a copy of the Claimant’s schedule, which had been submitted to her, and after of course taking into account the Defendants representations.
The Claimants still acted through Miss T, obtained permission to appeal on what it became common ground was the basis of unintentionally misleading information put before the Judge. Permission to appeal was granted in respect of the failure to allow interest, and the reduction in costs by the disallowance of litigant in person costs.
The Judge on this appeal held that had the true facts been placed before the Judge who granted permission he would never have done so, and even the amended grounds of appeal suggested by Mr Webb, who again represented the Claimants on the appeal, could not save the appeal, which had therefore to be dismissed.
Although that was sufficient to dispose of the appeal, and everything else that the Judge said was strictly obiter, his findings on the question of interest merit report. Interest was claimed on one of four alternative bases: (a) Section 35(A) of the Supreme Court Act; (b) the general equitable jurisdiction of the courts; (c) Section 66(a) of the Solicitors Act 1974; and (d) Regulation 24 of the 1991 Solicitors Accounts Rules, or Regulation 25 of the 1998 Rules (it was not entirely clear which governed, but the wording is virtually the same).
The Judge held that Section 35(A) could not apply, because this was not a claim for a debt or damages. So far as the equitable jurisdiction of the court was concerned the Judge held on the basis of the very old case of Wright v Southwood, decided in 1827, that no such claim was permissible in the circumstances of this case. So far as Section 66(a) Solicitor Act 1974 is concerned the Judge held that money was not ‘improperly retained’ by the solicitor where all that the solicitor did was to retain money paid for bills pending the decision of the Costs Judge as to whether or not those bills were payable in full or in part. Finally, so far as the Solicitor Accounts Rules were concerned, the Judge held firstly that they only applied to money held in client account, and the evidence was that the monies paid by the company went straight into office account, because they were in settlement of bills. In any event however the Judge held that the Defendants terms of business, which expressly excluded the right of the claimant to interest, survived, because the contract was not, as suggested by Mr Webb, void ab initio.
The Judge disposed of the question of the additional costs claimed on the basis that the decision of the Costs Judge was well within the margin of permissible error, and should not be interfered with.
The Judged awarded costs to the Defendants of andpound;4,500, but refused their application to join Miss T as a party, and to make an order for costs against her on the basis that it was her misrepresentations which caused all the expense of the appeal to be incurred.

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 9, [2001] EWHC 9010 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185949

Fereidooni v Pettman Smith: SCCO 18 Jul 2001

The Claimant, Mr Fereidooni, was engaged in litigation against Halifax Plc whose agents had wrongfully seized some of his possessions. Counsel acting for the Claimant in those proceedings advised him that he might be better being represented by Messrs Pettman Smith, the Defendant in these proceedings. The client saw Mr Sachs of the Defendant firm and discussed matters in general terms. At that meeting it was agreed that the Defendant would represent the Claimant in respect of different proceedings against William Martin. A client care letter was sent under the heading William Martin which set out in the normal way the rates which the client would be charged. At a subsequent meeting the Defendant firm agreed to carry on the William Martin litigation on a no win no fee basis and the client was told he had been sent the client care letter merely to enable them to recover their costs against the other side should they be successful.
The Claimant’s case was that at a series of meetings attended by his loss assessor and his business partner, Mr Sachs agreed to conduct the Halifax litigation for whatever could be recovered from Halifax by way of costs and also agreed to conduct the litigation against the clients former solicitors (who now claimed andpound;31,000 costs) for a sum not exceeding andpound;500. The Defendant denied that any such arrangement had ever been made and that their terms of business were as set out in the William Martin client care letter, which was said to refer to all business done by the Defendants for the client.
On detailed assessment the Master heard evidence and the Claimant’s witnesses were cross examined. The Master, quoting a passage in Cordery on Solicitors, found that the onus was on the solicitors to establish the terms of the retainer and that in the absence of persuasive evidence he should prefer the client’s version. This he did and found the retainer to be in the terms asserted by the client.
The Defendant firm appealed saying that the Master had ignored the weight of the evidence and that it was quite clear from the correspondence that the solicitors were under the impression that they were working on a full charging basis.
Before Mr Justice Butterfield the Appellants were unable to demonstrate that the Master was wrong. In response to questions from the bench it was found that Mr Sachs either had no recollection or that the relevant documents were not in the bundle but were ‘probably back in the office’. The Respondent client appeared in person, his first language was Farsi and he had come out of Iran in 1979 when the Shah was deposed. He now ran a business as property manager for a number or Middle Eastern clients. Although clearly a shrewd and intelligent man he did not have a particularly good command of English and the Judge had no difficulty in finding that the Appellants had not begun to make out their case. The appeal was dismissed.
In summing up Butterfield J drew particular attention to the words of Denning LJ in Griffiths v Evans 1953 2 All ER 1364 at 1369:
‘On this question of retainer, I would observe that where there is a difference between a solicitor and his client on it, the courts have said for the last 100 years or more that the word of the client is to be preferred to the word of the solicitor, or, at any rate more weight is to be given to it: see Crossley v Crowther per Sir George J Turner V-C; re Paine per Warrington J. The reason is plain. It is because the client is ignorant and the solicitor is, or should be, learned. If the solicitor does not take the precaution of getting a written retainer, he has only himself to thank for being at variance with his client over it and must take the consequences.’
The Respondent sought an order for costs which the Appellants did not resist but wished to have adjourned back to the Master to investigate whether or not there had been financial loss. On the advice of the assessors the Judge put the Respondent in the witness box on oath and satisfied himself that there had been financial loss. The claim for andpound;1,100 costs was allowed at andpound;750.

Judges:

Mr Justice Butterfield sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 6, [2001] EWHC 9007 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185946

Adams v MacInnes: SCCO 8 Nov 2001

CourtService In this case Mr MacInnes, who was the Second Defendant, was ordered to pay the costs of proceedings for possession brought by Mr Adams. Although the case commenced as a straightforward possession action it developed into a far more complex piece of litigation. The inter partes bill was brought in at andpound;194,139 after detailed assessment was reduced somewhat, particularly because the Master reduced the claim for uplift of 80% to 65%.
The Defendant appealed, claiming a breach of the indemnity principle and a champertous agreement between the Claimant and his solicitors. He sought to have the whole of the inter partes bill set aside on the basis that the agreement between the Claimant and his solicitors was unlawful and unenforceable.
The evidence was that in 1990 the solicitors had sent a client care letter to the Claimant setting out their terms of business and asking him to sign and return a copy of the letter. No copy of that letter survives, although there was evidence which proved conclusively that it had been sent and that the Claimant had received it. There was however no evidence that he agreed to the terms of the letter. The solicitors delivered to the Claimant periodic bills setting out the work they had done during the preceding period. The Claimant paid those bills. In August 1994 the solicitors sent a further client care letter, a copy of which was produced, setting out their terms of business and stating in terms that they would apply an uplift for care and conduct but probably not until the end of the action when they could decide what mark-up was merited. The solicitors continued to send periodic bills but it was not until May 1996 that the bills changed in format and bore a prominent message to the effect that that the bill was an interim bill. The defendants case was that the 1994 letter was evidence of a sham agreement between the Claimant solicitors and the Claimant and that had the Claimant lost he would have been charged the basic rate without uplift but that when he won the solicitors applied the maximum uplift they thought they could recover.
There was evidence that the Claimant had paid all the bills totalling andpound;196,725. The bills which had been delivered to the Claimant until May 1996 were drawn in a way which made them look like final bills. They set out exactly what work had been done, the rate being charged and the period covered by the bill and each carried a notice informing the client of his rights to detailed assessment under the Solicitors Act.
At the hearing it became apparent that the Defendant had not seen the client care letter or any of the interim bills. Mr Hutton who appeared for the Claimant asserted that they were privileged and that whilst the Claimant had no objection to producing the documents to the court they should not be disclosed to the Defendant. Mr Justice Gray indicated that he thought this was most unsatisfactory and could constitute a breach of Article 6 ECHR and offended against the principle of equality of arms. Having taken instructions Mr Hutton accepted that the Defendant should have sight of the documents in issue. When giving judgment Mr Justice Gray indicated that he thought it should be standard practice where a client care letter was affirmatively relied on that it was produced to the paying party. He felt this should become standard practice.
On the facts of the case the Judge found that notwithstanding an affidavit by the solicitor setting out their practice in 1990 (which was not challenged on cross examination) the bills delivered by the solicitors were in such form as to raise serious doubts as to the accuracy of the solicitors’ assertion. In those circumstances the Judge found that the Master was wrong to accept the solicitors evidence and amended the Master’s certificate to disallow all care and conduct until August 1994.
The Defendant was allowed one quarter of his costs of appeal on the basis that although he had succeeded on the uplift point he had failed on his main thrust of champerty and illegality and had also failed in respect of the bills delivered after August 1994.

Judges:

Mr Justice Gray sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 13, [2001] EWHC 9014 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185953

Dickinson v Rushmer: SCCO 21 Dec 2001

CourtService After strenuously contested proceedings in the County Court for an account the claimant recovered some andpound;18,000, and subsequently submitted a bill for andpound;86,000 odd. The indemnity principle was raised before a Deputy Costs Judge who then asked to see the client care letter, the bill of costs sent to the client and the calculations of payments made thereunder, but refused to show these documents to the paying party, holding that he was satisfied that there had been no breach of the indemnity principle after considering the documents, and then proceeded with the assessment, which resulted in some, but only modest, reductions in the figure claimed. The defendant appealed, contending that he should have been permitted to see the documents shown to the Costs Judge.
In this case, in contrast with the case of South Coast Shipping (No.15 of 2001), the learned Judge felt able to decide the issue purely on careful analysis of the English authorities, without reference to the European legislation or authorities, though they were cited to him.
The gist of the Judge’s decision allowing the appeal is in paragraph 33 of his judgment, which reads:
‘In my view, the procedure adopted by the costs judge was unfair. I can in any event see no good reason why the client care letter and the payment calculations could not have been disclosed to the defendant, since I have not been persuaded that they were privileged. But if anything in them might have been regarded as privileged, one course which might at least have been considered was the redaction from them of the privileged parts, a course which could or might also have been considered in relation to Wakefields’ bills. Ultimately, however, this was a simple situation in which the claimant chose to prove his version of a disputed issue of fact by reference to certain documents. In my view, the basic principle is that, if he wanted to do so, fairness required him also to disclose the documents to the defendant.’
The learned Judge earlier held that in his opinion the bill to the client was, on the basis of the judgment of Sir G J Turner V-C in Chant v Brown [1852] 9 HARE 790, privileged from production.

Judges:

Mr Justice Rimer sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2002] 1 Costs LR 98, [2001] EW Costs 17, [2001] EWHC 9018 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Dickinson (T/a John Dickinson Equipment Finance) v Rushmer (T/a F J Associates) CA 14-Feb-2000
. .

Cited by:

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

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185957

Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another v Steinberg: SCCO 27 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 9010 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Englefield and Another v Steinberg CA 26-Mar-2001
Application for leave to appeal out of time against an interim order in defamation claim.
Held: The defendant had not shown any good cause for setting the judge’s case management directions aside, nor that he should recuse himself. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another QBD 18-Jun-2003
. .
See Also – Englefield v Steinberg (No 2) SCS 20-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Pritchard Englefield v Steinberg and Steinberg ChD 30-Jul-2004
Enforcement of charging order absolute. . .
See Also – Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another CA 3-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by . .
See Also – Steinberg v Englefield and Another CA 5-Jul-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185701

Geologistics Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme: Admn 4 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 629 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Policyholder (Protection) Act 1975 6(4) 6(5)

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina (Geologistics) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme CA 18-Dec-2003
The claimant had made a claim against an insurance company which was insolvent. The claim had been paid by the Scheme, and he now sought payment by them of the costs of the claim also.
Held: The costs were payable. The construction of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (Geologistics) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme CA 18-Dec-2003
The claimant had made a claim against an insurance company which was insolvent. The claim had been paid by the Scheme, and he now sought payment by them of the costs of the claim also.
Held: The costs were payable. The construction of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Costs, Insolvency

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185577

Moy v Pettman Smith (A Firm) and Another: CA 25 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Moy v Pettman Smith (A Firm) CA 19-Jun-2002
The claimant had pursued an action for damages for professional negligence against a hospital treating his broken tibia. He now sought damages after the defendant firm of solicitors acting for him in the first action had, he said, failed to obtain . .

Cited by:

See Also – Moy v Pettman Smith (a firm) and another HL 3-Feb-2005
Damages were claimed against a barrister for advice on a settlement given at the door of the court. After substantial litigation, made considerably more difficult by the negligence of the solicitors, the barrister had not advised the claimant at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185518

Partridge and others v Lawrence and others: CA 8 Jul 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1122

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Partridge and others v Lawrence and others CA 8-Jul-2003
The appellants challenged a finding as to the width of a right of way over their land as exercised by the respondents.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘The claimants now have the security that this court is . .

Cited by:

See Also – Partridge and others v Lawrence and others CA 8-Jul-2003
The appellants challenged a finding as to the width of a right of way over their land as exercised by the respondents.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘The claimants now have the security that this court is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185529

Kopel v Safeway Stores Plc: EAT 11 Apr 2003

EAT The Tribunal had concluded that the claimant’s refusal of an employer’s offer amounted to unreasonable conduct.
Held: Mittig J said: ‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal had not erred in exercising its discretion under Rule 14(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and making a Costs Order against the applicant on the grounds that part of her claim was seriously misconceived and that her failure to accept the employer’s substantial offer of settlement was unreasonable conduct of the proceedings.’
As to the use of Calderbank offers in employment law proceedings: ‘There is no question of any rule in Calderbank v Calderbank applying to proceedings before the employment tribunal. The principle in Calderbank is that a party to matrimonial proceedings against whom a money claim is made can protect his position as to costs by making an offer of settlement marked without prejudice save as to costs. The offer may not be referred to during the main hearing but may be once judgment is given: if the order made is less favourable than the offer, the court may take the offer into account when considering what if any order for costs to make.’ and ‘There is no doubt, however, that an offer of the Calderbank type is a factor which the employment tribunal can take into account under rule 14.’

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting

Citations:

EAT/281/02, [2003] EAT 0281 – 02 – 1104, [2003] UKEAT 0281 – 02 – 1104, [2003] IRLR 753

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

Cited by:

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

Employment, Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185496

Fitzhugh Gates (A Firm) v Claudia Louise Elaine Borden Sherman: CA 1 Jul 2003

The firm of solicitors challenged a wasted costs order. The order had been made on the basis that they had persisted with a case which the court had told them was misconceived, and had acted despite a conflict of interest. The order had been made under unusual circumstances on appeal from the original costs order.
Held: The conflict of interest had been recognised, and appropriate proposals rejected. It was not significant, and did not contribute to the costs (Ridehalgh). A different form of action would have not saved any costs. The executors were met with a threat to challenge the will, which undermined their capacity to administer the estate. The position was not clear. The primary responsibility for the difficult task of protecting the interest of litigants in person must rest with the court. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Sir Christopher Staughton Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

A3/2002/2244, Gazette 17-Jul-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 886

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Freudiana Holdings Ltd CA 4-Dec-1995
A judge can discharge his own wasted costs order when issues came to required the re-litigation of the case. . .
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 . .
Cited – Medcalf v Mardell, Weatherill and Another HL 27-Jun-2002
The appellants were barristers against whom wasted costs orders had been made. They appealed. They had made allegations of fraud in pleadings, but without being able to provide evidence to support the allegation. This was itself a breach of the Bar . .
Cited – Connolly-Martin v Davis CA 27-May-1999
A claim was brought by a party against counsel for his opponent who had gone beyond his authority in giving an undertaking for his client.
Held: The claim had no prospect of success, and had been struck out correctly. Counsel offering to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Wills and Probate

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184169

Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd: CA 24 Jun 2003

It had been argued by the claimant in written submissions (although not maintained orally) that an order for payment of pre-judgment interest on costs should never be made. As to an award of interest on costs:- ‘In any event in principle there seems no reason why the Court should not do so where a party has had to put up money paying its solicitors and been out of the use of that money in the meanwhile.’ It was ordered that the award of interest should run as from the date or dates of solicitors’ invoices.
The defendants had argued for a rate of interest of 6% per annum to reflect the fact that they would have had to pay 2% over base rate if they had borrowed the money from their bank. Waller LJ answered: ‘The question is whether the evidence in this case demonstrates that a rate greater than 1% above base rate should be applied. Evidence of what a bank might have charged if money had been borrowed is not we think sufficient. It is not clear to us what takes Blackburn outside the norm to which the 1% above base rate presumption applies. In our view the appropriate course in relation to these costs is to make an award of interest at 1% over base rate the interest to run from the date when the costs were paid.’

Judges:

Waller LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 889

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(6)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 13-Feb-2003
. .
See also – Bim Kemi v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 3-Apr-2001
The question was the degree of connection which must be shown between (1) a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of a contract and (2) a cross-claim for unliquidated damages for breach of a different contract between the same parties, in order . .
See also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd ComC 30-Jan-2002
. .
See also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd SCCO 24-Jun-2003
. .
Cited – Jaura v Ahmed CA 21-Feb-2002
The applicant sought damages for the wrongful termination of her lease by the respondent. The landlords re-entered in default of payment of the rent. The premises had been sub-let, and she sought damages for the loss of rental profits.
Held: . .

Cited by:

See also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 13-Feb-2003
. .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others ChD 23-Jan-2004
. .
See also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Limited ComC 6-Feb-2004
. .
See Also – Blackburn Chemicals Ltd v Bim Kemi Ab CA 10-Nov-2004
The parties entered into exclusive cross marketing agreements. The defendant resisted enforcement of the contract saying it was void under European law, being contrary to Article 81. The parties were alleged to have agreed to make cross purchases. . .
Cited – Jones and Others v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Another QBD 3-May-2013
The claimants sought an order for pre-judgment interest on the disbursements incurred in this group litigation. The clients were liable for payment of the disbursements under the conditional fee agreements, and in this case these amounted to over . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184063

Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd: PC 5 Feb 1986

(Hong Kong) The Boad considered the costs payable for counsel on an appeal to the Board from Hong Kong

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Roskill, Lord Griffiths

Citations:

[1986] UKPC 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Tai Hing Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank PC 1985
(Hong Kong) The relationship between banker and customer is principally a contractual one between debtor and creditor. As between the banker and his customer, the risk of loss through forgery of the customer’s signature falls on the banker unless . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183493

South Coast Shipping v Havant Borough Council: 21 Dec 2001

With respect to privileged material produced to the Costs Judge, once a document is of sufficient importance to be taken into account in arriving at a conclusion as to recoverability, then, unless otherwise agreed, it must be shown to the paying party or the receiving party must content himself with other evidence. If the costs judge has seen documents and required the receiving party to elect between giving secondary evidence of the retainer and waiving the privilege, there was no incompatibility with the Convention. This does not mean the costs judge may put the receiving party to its election for every document, regardless of relevance. The paying party may be content to agree that the costs judge alone should see the privileged documents. Only where it is necessary and proportionate should the receiving party be put to his election. The redaction and production of privileged documents, or the adducing of further evidence, will lead to additional delay and increased costs.
CourtService The court considered the impact on detailed assessment proceedings of the European Convention on Human Rights, with particular relevance to the disclosure to the paying party of sensitive material relating to their bill of costs to which privilege attached. The European cases did not override the longstanding principle of privilege in English law, but the principle that a court should not decide issues after hearing and seeing only one side of the argument was a very powerful one. He indicated that much greater use should be made of Costs Judges and District Judges of paragraph 40.14 of the Costs Practice Direction in relation to the putting of receiving parties to their election as to how they proved particular issues of this nature.
However, on the facts, and because the Costs Judge from whom the appeal was brought had clearly considered all the relevant factors in coming to his decision that there had been no breach of the indemnity principle on the evidence available to him, the Judge dismissed the appeal, saying that to do otherwise would be to generate unfortunate and unnecessary satellite litigation.

Judges:

Mr Justice Pumfrey sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2002] 3 All ER 779, [2001] EW Costs 16, [2001] EWHC 9017 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Approved – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182521

Groupama Insurance Company Ltd v Overseas Partners Re Ltd and Another: ComC 21 Feb 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 290 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Groupama Insurance Company Ltd v Overseas Partners Re Ltd and Another ComC 24-Jan-2003
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Groupama Insurance Company Limited v Overseas Partners Re Limited Andaon Limited CA 17-Dec-2003
The court overruled the refusal of a trial judge to award any costs at all to a successful defendant in the Commercial Court and substituted an order that it be allowed 90% of its costs of the action (the discount of 10% being attributable to the . .
See Also – Groupama Insurance Company Ltd v Overseas Partners Re Ltd and Another ComC 24-Jan-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182607