Category: Costs

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 CFA, as a matter of fairness she should ordinarily be put to her election under the Pamplin procedure. The legislation should be given a purposive construction. Parliament did not mean to make unenforceable a CFA which met the requirements to safeguard justice, protect the client, and acknowledge the interests of other parties. The other party has no legitimate interest in avoiding his obligations by seizing on an apparent breach which is immaterial in the context of the other two purposes of the statutory regulation. It should become normal practice for a CFA to be disclosed for the purpose of costs proceedings in which a success fee is claimed. If the CFA contains confidential information relating to other proceedings, it may be suitably redacted before disclosure takes place. Attendance notes and other correspondence should not ordinarily be disclosed, but the judge conducting the assessment may require the disclosure of material of this kind if a genuine issue is raised.
The indemnity principle is now recognised by Parliament: ‘This common law principle, by which a paying party cannot be ordered to pay a receiving party more by way of costs than the receiving party is himself liable to pay, is now enshrined in statute, so far as solicitors are concerned, by section 60(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974, which provides:
‘A client shall not be entitled to recover from any other person under an order for the payment of any costs to which a contentious business agreement relates more than the amount payable by him to his solicitor in respect of those costs under the agreement.’
24. In 1999 Parliament showed itself well aware of the possible application of the indemnity principle in the context of the reforms it introduced in the 1999 Act, because by section 31 it provided:
”In section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (costs) in subsection (2) (rules regulating matters relating to costs) insert at the end ‘or for securing that the amount awarded to a party in respect of the costs to be paid by him to such representatives is not limited to what would have been payable by him to them if he had not been awarded costs’.
This section, however, has not yet been brought into force. (It will be noticed that these two sections state the principle in different ways, but that need not concern us for the purposes of these appeals.)’

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Lady Justice Hale Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 718, Times 10-Jun-2003, Gazette 17-Jul-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2487

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 27, Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Swain v The Law Society HL 1983
The Solicitors’ Practice Rules had the force of a statute, being rules made by the Council of the Law Society with parliamentary sanction for the protection of that section of the public who might be in need of legal advice, assistance or oversight. . .
Cited – Hughes v Kingston Upon Hull City Council QBD 9-Nov-1998
The Solicitors Practice Rules have the effect of law, and it is still improper to agree to pursue contentious proceedings on a contingency fee arrangement without specific statutory sanction, especially in criminal proceedings. An agreement for . .
Cited – Thai Trading (a Firm) v Taylor and Taylor (of Taylors Solicitors, Caversham) CA 27-Feb-1998
A solicitor had agreed with his wife to act for her in litigation on the understanding that he would only recover his profit costs if she succeeded.
Held: This agreement did not offend public policy. This type of agreement was distinguished . .
Cited – Callery v Gray, Russell v Pal Pak Corrugated Ltd (No 1) CA 18-Jul-2001
Claimants in modest, straightforward personal injury claims cases should have re-imbursed to them by the defendant, the cost of after the event insurance, if necessary by costs only proceedings. The solicitor’s success fee should also be recovered. . .
Cited – Harold v Smith 1860
‘Before stating the principle on which the Master acted on this taxation, it may be as well that I should state what we consider the principle upon which he ought to have acted. I think the question is one of considerable importance, and therefore, . .
Cited – Gundry v Sainsbury 1910
A party’s inability to recover more by way of costs than the amount for which he is himself liable by way of costs is known as the indemnity principle. . .
Cited – General of Berne Insurance Company v Jardine Reinsurance Management Limited CA 12-Feb-1998
Where only part of action for which costs are awarded, is covered by a contentious business agreement, and the amount recoverable is limited, that part is severable from the balance. A paying party cannot be ordered to pay a receiving party more by . .
Cited – Callery v Gray (1) and (2) HL 27-Jun-2002
Success fees and ATE premiums were recoverable
Objection was made to a claimed uplift of 20% sought by the plaintiff’s solicitors. The defendant’s insurers said that there had been little at risk for them.
Held: The system of conditional fees insurance had been introduced to remedy defects . .
Cited – Marckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
Cited – Goldman v Hesper 1988
The court has power in costs proceedings to order the receiving party to disclose such documents, orginally to the court, as are necessary to make its decision.
Held: It would be rare to exercise this discretion. . .
Cited – Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd 1985
A costs judge does not have any power to order discovery to be given: he does not have any power to override a right of privilege. But he has a duty if the respondent raises a relevant factual issue to require the claimant to prove the facts on . .
Cited – Hazlett v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 2-Dec-1999
The need for a party claiming his costs to give evidence to prove his entitlement to costs rather than relying on the presumption in his favour, will not arise if the defendant simply puts the complainant to proof of his entitlement to costs. The . .
Distinguished – Bailey v IBC Vehicles Limited CA 27-Mar-1998
The claimant succeeded in an action for personal injuries. The defendants agreed damages with costs. The claimant was assisted financially by his union. The defendants objected to elements of the bill, and asked for evidence that the bill was not in . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v The Governor and Co of the Bank of England (No 5) CA 3-Apr-2003
Documents had been prepared by the respondent to support a request for legal advice in anticipation of the Bingham enquiry into the collapse of BCCI.
Held: Legal advice privilege attached to the communications between a client and the . .
Cited – Hodgson and others v Imperial Tobacco Limited Gallagher Limited etc CA 12-Feb-1998
A large number of plaintiffs brought actions against the defendants, three tobacco companies, claiming damages for personal injuries by reason of cancer which they claimed was caused by smoking cigarettes manufactured by the defendants. A hearing . .
Cited – Z And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2001
Four children complained that, for years before they were taken into care by the local authority, its social services department was well aware that they were living in filthy conditions and suffering ‘appalling’ neglect in the home of their . .
Approved – 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 . .
Cited – Regina (Factortame Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (No 8) CA 3-Jul-2002
A firm of accountants had agreed to provide their services as experts in a case on the basis that they would be paid by taking part of any damages awarded. The respondent claimed that such an agreement was champertous and unlawful.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jeyeanthan; Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-May-1999
The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant . .

Cited by:

Cited – Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another CA 27-Oct-2005
The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate.
Held: The absence of . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
Cited – Gaynor v Central West London Buses Ltd CA 28-Jul-2006
The solicitors appealed a finding that a conditional fee agreement with their client was unenforceable as against their client for failing to meet the requirements of the 1990 Act, which in turn deprived them of a right to claim the costs from the . .
Cited – Jones v Wrexham Borough Council CA 19-Dec-2007
The claimant appealed against a decision that the conditional fee agreement with her solicitors had been unenforceable because the solicitors had not disclosed to her a conflicting interest in recommending insurers. The issue was whether the CFA was . .
Cited – Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd; Jones v Attrill etc CA 11-Dec-2008
The defendants sought to argue that the conditional fee arrangement used by the claimant’s solicitors had been void under the 2000 regulations. They claimed that the solicitors had failed to disclose an interest in the policies sold.
Held: No . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182358

Islam v Ali: CA 26 Mar 2003

For a costs appeal to succeed it must be established that the judge has exceeded the limits of his proper discretion by the order made. Auld LJ said that the Court should only intervene: ‘the judge has either erred in principle in his approach, or has left out of account, or taken into account, some feature that he should, or should not, have considered, or that [the exercise of] his discretion is wholly wrong because the court is forced to the conclusion that he has not balanced the various factors fairly in the scale.’

Judges:

Auld LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 612

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones and Another v Ruth and Another CA 12-Jul-2011
The parties were neighbours. The claimants succeeded in their assertion of trespass and nuisance in building works carried out by the defendant. The claimant appealed against the judge’s failure to award damages for harassment, saying that though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181930

Wagstaff v Colls and Another: CA 2 Apr 2003

The action had been stayed by an order on agreed terms. The claimant sought a wasted costs order against the defendants’ solicitors on the ground that they had witheld certain facts during the litigation. The defendants argued that they should first apply for a lift of the stay.
Held: An application of a wasted costs order was only tangential to the main proceedings, and it was not necessary first to apply to lift the stay. The action was not dead as if it had been dismissed. The actions required under the Tomlin order had been concluded, and a wasted costs application had nothing to with the defendants and would not affect them adversely. There was no need to lift the stay, just as there would be no need for permission to pursue such an applcation after a final order in any proceedings.

Judges:

Ward, Buxton, Arden LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 469, [2003] 4 Costs LR 535, [2003] CP Rep 50, [2003] PNLR 29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rofa Sport Management AG v DHL International (UK) Ltd CA 1989
After an action had been stayed, it remained technically in being. It cannot proceed or resume without a court order, but it cannot properly be regarded as dead, in the same way as it might had it been dismissed or discontinued by order. . .
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 – Myers v Elman HL 1939
The solicitor had successfully appealed against an order for a contribution to the other party’s legal costs, after his clerk had filed statements in court which he knew to be misleading. The solicitor’s appeal had been successful.
Held: The . .
See Also – Wagstaff v Colls SCCO 2-Apr-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181180

A L Barnes Ltd v Time Talk (UK) Ltd: CA 26 Mar 2003

The claimant appealed a costs order which had denied him the substantial part of his costs despite feeling that he had won the case. The court had said that no order should be made for payment of the expert witness’ costs of either party.
Held: The judge had erred. He should first have asked which was the successful party, before then exercising his discretion, rather than first separating out one issue, and then making that judgment. The claimant was entitled in the circumstances of this case to recover 25% of his costs.

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 402, Times 09-Apr-2003, [2003] BLR 331

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pearce v Brooks 1866
The contract was for the hire of an ornamental brougham to a prostitute which was supplied with knowledge that it would be used ‘as part of her display’. She returned it in a damaged condition, and refused to make any payments under the contract as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Contract

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180435

Rowlands and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Royal and Sun Alliance Plc: CA 24 Mar 2003

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Mantell Lord Justice Waller

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 383

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003
The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .

Cited by:

See Also – DK, KR, CGE, DHM, PS, RM, DJ, GOM v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Royal and Sun Alliance PLC CA 22-May-2003
. .
See Also – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 10-Jun-2003
The court considered an extension of the time for claiming damages for personal injuries after the claimants said they had been sexually abused as children in the care of the defendants.
Held: The test to be applied under section 14(2) was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180329

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 incurred pursuing issues on which it lost.

Judges:

Tomlinson J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 472 (Comm), Times 29-Mar-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36.21(3)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Summit Property Ltd v Pitmans CA 19-Nov-2001
Whilst surprising, it was possible that a successful claimant could be ordered to pay the majority of a defendant’s costs. Under the Civil Procedure rules, it was proper to order costs on an issue by issue basis. . .
Cited – Stena Rederi Aktiebolag and Another v Irish Ferries Ltd CA 6-Feb-2003
A ferry plied its way between Dublin and Holyhead, coming into English territorial waters three or four times a day, and for up to three hours on each occasion. The claimants asserted that the construction of the hull infringed its patent.
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 – . .
See also – 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 by:

See Also – 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 . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insurance

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179926

In re Claims Direct Test Cases: CA 12 Feb 2003

The parties sought repayment as part of their costs of insurance premiums paid by claimants undertaking litigation.
Held: The underwriters charged andpound;140.00 for each case. Claims Direct charged a premium of andpound;1,250.00 for each case, and out of which they paid the underwriters. The underwriters would not insure unless appropriate arrangements were in place for management of the cases, and they were not in a position themselve sto provide that support. Nevertheless, it had not been the intention of Parliament to overload the recoverable premium with such additional costs. Some of the additional elements might be recoverable by the solicitors conducting the cases, but not otherwise.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Brooke, Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

Times 18-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 136, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 677, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 788, [2003] 4 All ER 508, [2003] PIQR P31, [2003] 2 Costs LR 254

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Claims Direct Test Cases SCCO 19-Jul-2002
. .
Cited – Callery v Gray (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2001
A plaintiff could recover the costs of insuring himself against the risk of having to pay the other sides costs, and finding his own costs irrecoverable (after the event or ATE insurance). The earlier case had decided that such premiums may be . .
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .

Cited by:

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

Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179039

Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company Sa and Another v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD: ComC 4 Nov 2002

One party had made a formal offer of settlement under the Rules, which had been declined, but the offer made was more favourable to him than the order which had eventually made.
Held: The rejecting party should normally pay costs on an indemnity basis and interest at a higher rate as from the date of rejection. This might be avoided where the rejecting party persuaded the court that it had a proper reason for the rejection for example its own inability to assess the claim because of the failure of the offering party to make adequate disclosure.

Judges:

Aikens J

Citations:

Times 27-Dec-2002, Gazette 30-Jan-2003, [2002] EWHC 2210 (Comm), [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1

Links:

Bailii

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178935

Powell v Herefordshire Health Authority: CA 27 Nov 2002

The defendant appealed an order that it should pay interest on the costs of the claimant from a date in 1994 when interim judgement had been given, even though damages were finally assessed only in 2001, and the costs had not yet been incurred.
Held: The court had not had referred to it the provisions of the rule. That rule gave the court a discretion as to the date form which interest was to be awarded on costs, and the order had been made per incuriam.

Judges:

Kay LJ, Phillips MR, Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1786

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(6)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Civil Procedure Rules, Costs

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178616

Gee v Shell UK Ltd: CA 24 Oct 2002

The claimant sought an award for unfair dismissal. A similar case had been decided against another worker, and the respondent warned that it would want its costs. The tribunal gave her a warning that she was at risk of a costs order. She withdrew her case, but then appealed. The EAT said she had been subjected to undue pressure, and ordered a rehearing. The respondent appealed.
Held: The tribunal chairman had apparently given ‘a strong steer’ that the claimant was at real risk of being on the wrong end of a substantial costs order if she went on with the case and failed. At the time, and in such circumstances there was little real probability of a costs order being made against the claimant. It was improper for the Employment Tribunal to have given a costs warning where the likelihood of a costs order did not justify it. However the introduction of the new ground for the award of costs where a pleading was ‘misconceived’ had lowered the standard somewhat. Appeal dismissed.
Scott Baker LJ said: ‘In my judgment a tribunal must be particularly careful not to place unfair pressure on a litigant in person. A party who is legally represented has the opportunity for his representative to put any remarks by the tribunal in context. For example the legal representative can explain the circumstances in which a tribunal is entitled to and may make a costs order . . Against this background the ‘costs warnings’ was unfair. It left [the claimant] in no doubt (and in my judgment would have left any reasonable litigant in person standing in her shoes in no doubt) that if she continued and lost she was at real risk of a substantial order for costs being made against her and that it might well be enforced against her house.’
Sedley LJ said: ‘While plainly there cannot be one rule or legal principle for litigants in person and another for those who are represented . . it does not follow that an employment tribunal is entitled to treat every party as if it had the strength of advice and representation which, for example, Shell (UK) Limited enjoyed in this case. Inexperienced lawyers may not be a match for experienced ones; lay representatives may not be a match for lawyers; some lawyers may not be a match for a clever litigant in person or an experienced lay representative. The tribunal’s job, precisely because it cannot guarantee equality of arms, is to ensure equality of access to its processes for sometimes disparately powerful parties. This involves making a careful appraisal, case by case of the parties and their respective capabilities. It must also, however, involve ultimate equality of treatment, so that whoever presses on with a doomed case after due warning faces the same risk on costs.’
Simon Browne LJ said: ‘The all important dividing line . . was between on the one hand ‘robust, effective and fair case management’ and on the other ‘inappropriate pressure and unfairness’ . . That line cannot be a sharp one: costs warnings cannot properly be characterised as having applied ‘inappropriate pressure’ or as being ‘unfair’ unless no reasonable tribunal would have given them. Given the obvious need for ‘robust and effective case management’ which might sometimes positively require a costs warning, there must be a wide margin of appreciation (a substantial area of discretionary judgment) open to the tribunal as to when and in what terms the warning should be given. It seems to me that only if it is perfectly plain to the reviewing court . . that the tribunal has overstepped to bounds of propriety will an appeal on this basis succeed.’

Judges:

Simon Brown VP CA, Sedley, Scott Baker LLJ

Citations:

Times 04-Nov-2002, Gazette 19-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1479, [2003] IRLR 82

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .
Cited – Scott v Inland Revenue CA 2-Apr-2004
The employee had claimed damages for unfair dismissal. The Revenue had subsequently changed its policy on retirement, but did not disclose this to the claimant. The change would have altered the calculation of the damages.
Held: A calculation . .
Cited – Drysdale v The Department of Transport (The Maritime and Coastguard Agency) CA 31-Jul-2014
The claimant had been represented at his claim before the employment tribunal by his wife, acting as a lay representative. She asked to be allowed to withdraw the complaint. Without asking her, the complaint was dismissed, and costs awarded against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177851

Regina (on the Application of Chorion Plc) v Westminster City Council: CA 30 Jul 2002

The judge had awarded the costs of part of an action to one party, and provided that overall the costs were to be assessed if not agreed. The applicant sought to have its costs own assessed.
Held: The order did not differentiate between the different parts on the question of assessment, and it was not possible to assess one part of the costs as opposed to the whole. Such a deferred assessment was different in nature from deciding whether a party would receive all or part of its costs.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

Times 21-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1126, [2002] All ER (D) 468, [2002] LLR 624, [2003] CPLR 41

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina (on the Application of Chorion Plc) v Westminster City Council Admn 5-Oct-2001
A licensing policy had been challenged and then amended by the defendant council to meet the claimant’s concerns. Though the remaining issue was as to costs; the judge had to decide whether the challenge had been well founded.
Held: The policy . .
Main Judgment – Chorion Plc v Westminster City Council CA 5-Mar-2002
renewed application for permission to appeal – costs after withdrawal of application for judicial review. . .

Cited by:

Cited – JD Wetherspoon Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Guildford Borough Council Admn 11-Apr-2006
The company sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to apply its cumulative impact policy to their application for extended licensing hours.
Held: The company’s application amounted to a material variation of the license, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Licensing

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177476

Mohamad Ali Aoun v Hassan Bahri, Costas Angelou: CA 31 Jul 2002

The claimant wanted to appeal an order to pay the defendants’ costs already ordered, and to provide security for costs of the remaining action. The defendants requested security for the costs of the appeal. Throughout the matter the claimant had been inconsistent about his residence and connections with the UK. The claimant had been late paying the funds.
Held: The rules required strong grounds before interfering with an order allowing leave for an appeal once granted. The stay arising from the failure to comply with the judge’s order did not prevent the appeal. Defendants’ appeal refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1141

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 52.9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Aoun v Bahri and Another ComC 6-Feb-2002
Application for security for costs against the claimant. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Aoun v Bahri and Another CA 4-Sep-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174771

Halloran v Delaney: CA 6 Sep 2002

The claimant had succeeded in his claim for personal injuries, and had issued costs only proceedings. The defendant challenged the ‘success fee’ claimed as part of the conditional fee arrangement.
Held: The costs recoverable were to be reasonable and proportionate. The success fee was not to be judged with hindsight, but must allow for where the risk was minimal. The Law Society Model CFA covered both the claim and proper enforcement steps, including the claim for costs if necessary. Could a success fee be recovered in respect of the costs of pursuing the costs only proceedings? It could, and given the state of uncertainty at the time when the agreement was made, a 20% uplift was appropriate. However the court also considered the general success uplift in simple cases to be too high, and the court should ordinarily order an uplift of 5% only.

Judges:

Brooke, Peter Gibson, Tuckey LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1258, [2003] 1 WLR 28, [2002] 3 Costs LR 503, [2003] PIQR P5, [2003] RTR 147, [2003] RTR 9, [2003] 1 All ER 775

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Callery v Gray (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2001
A plaintiff could recover the costs of insuring himself against the risk of having to pay the other sides costs, and finding his own costs irrecoverable (after the event or ATE insurance). The earlier case had decided that such premiums may be . .

Cited by:

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

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175059

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 order, it could be appropriate to make a percentage based order under subsection (f). Whilst issues based costs orders might generally be preferred, that was by no means universal. A party remained entitled to have the other side’s conduct taken into account under rule 44.3(4)(a), and to have its own partial success recognized under (b), but a party would be unlikely to succeed on all issues.
Simon Brown LJ said that: ‘the court can properly have regard to the fact that in almost every case even the winner is likely to fail on some issues.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

Times 09-Sep-2002, Gazette 10-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1125

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(6)(a) 44.3(6)(f)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd CA 1-Feb-1999
The copyright tribunal was given a wide discretion for the awarding of costs on applications made to it for licenses. The nature of the applications and the different basis makes it dangerous to import rules for awards from the general rules on . .
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 – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .

Cited by:

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

Costs

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174452

Claims Direct Test Cases: SCCO 19 Jul 2002

Judges:

Chief Master Hurst, Senior Costs Judge

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 002 (Cost)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – In re Claims Direct Test Cases CA 12-Feb-2003
The parties sought repayment as part of their costs of insurance premiums paid by claimants undertaking litigation.
Held: The underwriters charged andpound;140.00 for each case. Claims Direct charged a premium of andpound;1,250.00 for each . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174351

Seray-Wurie v Hackney London Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 2002

The claimant had applied for and been granted its costs certificate by default. The respondent claimed it had sent its point of issue notice in time. The council now applied under the rule for the court itself to re-open the decision to allow the objections to be made. The High Court acceded to the request. The claimant was refused leave to appeal by the judge. The claimant sought appealed.
Held: The High Court, when it sat as an appeal court, did have power to re-open its own decisions in exceptional circumstances in order to avoid real injustice, following Taylor. There was no distinction in principle between the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In future, and pending any rules change, such applications should be made on paper to the high court. In this case no significant injustice could be shown.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-2002, Gazette 30-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 909, [2002] 3 All ER 448, [2003] 1 WLR 257

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 47.12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Taylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Costs

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174186

Regina (Factortame Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (No 8): CA 3 Jul 2002

A firm of accountants had agreed to provide their services as experts in a case on the basis that they would be paid by taking part of any damages awarded. The respondent claimed that such an agreement was champertous and unlawful.
Held: The tort of champerty as such had been abolished, but the rule remained as part of the law of public policy. There remained good reason why the principles of maintenance and champerty should apply with particular rigour to those conducting litigation. It would be only a rare case where an expert could properly financially support a case. In the absence of a statutory framework, the court must look for evidence of current practice in public policy. In this case the claimants had already succeeded on liability at the time when the experts were instructed, and public policy was not affronted.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Clarke

Citations:

Times 09-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 932, [2002] 3 WLR 1104, [2003] QB 381, [2002] 3 Costs LR 467, [2002] 4 All ER 97, [2003] BLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – British Cash and Parcel Conveyors Ltd v Lamson Store Service Co Ltd 1908
The court explained the law underlying the civil and criminal penalties for the maintenance of an action by third parties: ‘It is directed against wanton and officious intermeddling with the disputes of others in which the [maintainer] has no . .
Cited – Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) CA 1975
The court was asked whether Moir would be entitled to legal aid to bring a derivative action on behalf of a company against its majority shareholder.
Held: A minority shareholder bringing a derivative action on behalf of a company could obtain . .

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 . .
Cited – Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd and others CA 26-May-2005
The court considered the costs aftermath of a huge claim undertaken on a no win no fee basis and failing. The funder of the claim complained at an award of costs against it.
Held: Those who fund litigation must accept that their risks extend . .
Cited – Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and seven Others ComC 24-Apr-2008
The Office sought a declaration that the respondent and other banks were subject to the provisions of the Regulations in their imposition of bank charges to customer accounts, and in particular as to the imposition of penalties or charges for the . .
Cited – Armchair Passenger Transport Ltd v Helical Bar Plc and Another QBD 28-Feb-2003
Objection was made to the use of an expert witness who had formerly been a senior employee of the defendant.
Held: The court set out criteria for testing the independence of a proposed expert witness: ‘i) It is always desirable that an expert . .
Cited – Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 18-Apr-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order.
Held: The court only has jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Sibthorpe and Morris v London Borough of Southwark CA 25-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the extent to which the ancient rule against champerty prevents a solicitor agreeing to indemnify his claimant client against any liability for costs which she may incur against the defendant in the litigation in which the . .
Cited – Simpson v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust CA 12-Oct-2011
The court was asked whether it was possible to assign as a chose in action a cause of action in tort for damages for personal injury, and if so under what circumstances it was possible.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant did not have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174276

Reed and others v Oury and others: ChD 14 Mar 2002

The court should only exercise its power under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 3 to require a payment in only in limited circumstances, and not do so unless the party against whom the order was sought had acted in bad faith.

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 369 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Mora Hotel Corp Nv and Another CA 19-Nov-2002
A party had been ordered to pay into court as a condition of an application to set aside a judgment, a substantial sum in respect of past costs, and also as security for costs to be incurred. The defendant appealed.
Held: The judge had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170108

Huck v Robson: CA 21 Mar 2002

The claimant succeeded in her action for personal injuries. She appealed against an order for costs in her favour on the standard basis, saying that it should have been on an indemnity basis.

Judges:

Schiemann, Tuckey, Jonathon Parker LJJ

Citations:

[2002] 3 All ER 263, [2002] EWCA Civ 398, [2002] PIQR 591, [2003] 1 WLR 1340, [2002] CP Rep 38, [2002] CPLR 345, [2002] PIQR P31, [2003] 1 Costs LR 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170085

Dr I Kovacs v Queen Mary and Westfield College and Another: CA 22 Mar 2002

The claimant had had mixed success in claims for race discrimination, but appealed orders to pay to the costs of the respondents. She claimed to be impecunious and that that should have been taken into account before deciding whether a costs order should be made against her. Should a costs sanction be available to restrain the vexatious litigant whether poor or not?
Held: The tribunal should look at neither party’s means to decide whether a costs order should be made. The restriction on awards of costs unless for misbehaviour remains an appropriate protection of a litigant, and a tribunal does not have the facility to investigate means. The extension of the rules to allow awards for misbehaviour of representatives supported this view. Earlier case law not having dealt with this point at this level the court was free to make its own choice in the matter.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick and Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

Times 12-Apr-2002, Gazette 10-May-2002, [2002] Emp LR 940, [2002] ICR 919, [2002] IRLR 414

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 (1993 No 2687) 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – M J Benyon and others v David Scadden and others EAT 14-Jun-1999
The tribunal had found that the claimants and their union had pursued their case, even though they recognised the weakness of the case, with the additional intention of persuading their employer to recognise their union, UNISON. Such behaviour was . .
Appeal from – Dr I Kovacs v Queen Mary and Westfield College, the Royal Hospital NHS Trust EAT 1-Dec-2000
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal. . .
See Also – Kovacs v Queen Mary and Westfield College and Another CA 18-Dec-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168540

In re Claims Direct Test Cases: CA 19 Mar 2002

The applicants sought to appeal on two matters where they had questions of practice in the conduct of personal injury claims. These were as to whether after-the-event cover purchased under section 29 amounted to insurance premiums, and the setting of how much was a reasonable sum to be recovered in such cases.
Held: The Court of Appeal could only answer appeals from judgements. Its jurisdiction is appellate, and it was not appropriate to seek to deal with matters which had not yet been decided at first instance.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Potter and Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2002, Gazette 03-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 333

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insurance, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168119

Jolly v Jay and Another: CA 7 Mar 2002

The applicant sought to appeal a refusal to grant him permission to renew an oral application for leave to appeal. The respondent had appeared at the initial unsuccessful application, and had been awarded costs although there appeared to be no provision for their appearance.
Held: The Rules contained inconsistencies, and needed clarification. The Court of Appeal cannot entertain an application for permission to appeal from ‘a decision of an appeal court’. The Civil Appeals Office should in future refuse to list such applications. The court office explain the nature of the respondent’s potential involvement in the preliminary stages of a new appeals process because many misunderstandings showed that necessary. A second appeal to the CA must raise an important point of principle or practice, or there must be some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it: see rule 52.13. An appeal against an order for costs on a refused application for permission to appeal by a circuit judge lay to a High Court as a ‘first appeal’

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Sedley and Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

Times 03-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 277

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 52 52(3)(b), Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000 (2000 No 1071 (L10))

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Riniker v University College London (Practice Note) CA 5-Apr-2001
The Employment Appeal Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal which does not set out to disturb any part of the order made by the original tribunal. There is no inherent power in the Court of Appeal to bypass the prohibition in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cherrilow Ltd v Butler-Creagh CA 9-Dec-2011
The claimants challenged an order granting the defendants leave to appeal against judgment, saying that the application had been made without the required disclosure and with material inaccuracies.
Held: The court should not take the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Costs

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167969

Factortame Ltd and others v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions): CA 28 Jan 2002

A part 36 offer had been made and declined. A significant amendment was made to the defendant’s pleadings on the basis of information which had always been available to him. The claimant then accepted the payment in. Should the claimant be regarded as the successful party for costs purposes.
Held: Costs remain at the discretion of the judge, and a judge’s decision should not be interfered with without clear justification. Nevertheless, the court may take into account the circumstances which have given rise to a change of mind, and each decision must be assessed within its own factual matrix. In this case no error had been identified in the judge’s reasoning, and the appeal failed.
No general rule that claimant is ‘successful party’ if (a) defendant makes Part 36 payment which claimant does not accept, (b) defendant makes significant amendment to case on basis of information always available to him, (c) claimant then accepts payment

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal Civil Division Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 22, [2002] 2 All ER 838, [2002] 1 WLR 2438, [2002] CPLR 385

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167901

Dooley v Parker and Parker: CA 7 Feb 2002

A multi-track case had been settled. The District judge had ordered that there be no costs awarded. The appellant sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal had been rejected by the costs office who said that such an appeal lay only to the circuit judge.
Held: Jurisdiction lay with the Court of Appeal. Previous judgements on the point may have been clearer, but that was the case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Sedley, And, Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000 (2000 N0 1071)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167597

Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd: Admn 19 Oct 2001

After a finding in favour of the respondents, the applicants sought to argue that they should not be ordered to pay the costs, since they had been following a statutory duty in bringing the claim. They had made an administrative decision acting honestly, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in the exercise of its public duty.
Held: Whether the council could seek assistance from some other party for clarifying an obscure point of law was not for the court. They had lost their case and should pay the other party’s costs.

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 803

Links:

Bailii

Costs, Local Government

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167243

Mirror Group Newspapers Plc v Maxwell and Others: ChD 30 May 2000

The settling of remuneration paid to a court-appointed receiver was not an assessment of costs in the Chancery Division, and the court fee normally payable for such an assessment did not apply.

Citations:

Times 30-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mirror Group Newspapers Plc v Maxwell and Others (No 2) ChD 15-Jul-1997
The Court reminded insolvency practitioners of fiduciary duties to creditors when refusing application for further payment on account of costs. Ferris J considered the principles applicable to fixing the remuneration of receivers of the estate of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.83756

Mirror Group Newspapers Plc v Maxwell and Others (No 2): ChD 15 Jul 1997

The Court reminded insolvency practitioners of fiduciary duties to creditors when refusing application for further payment on account of costs. Ferris J considered the principles applicable to fixing the remuneration of receivers of the estate of Robert Maxwell appointed by the court under section 37 of the 1981 Act. Their total recoveries before their remuneration and legal fees amounted to pounds 1,672,500. The total of their remuneration (pounds 744,289), legal fees (pounds 705,283) and other disbursements was pounds 1,628,572, most of which was calculated on a time basis.
Held: The figures were in his judgment ‘profoundly shocking’ and he described the result of the receivership as ‘shameful’.
Ferris J regarded the 1986 Rules and other regulations as ‘somewhat sketchy, ill-expressed and consequently liable to be misunderstood’ but ‘if the matter is approached from the standpoint of general principle . . a much firmer picture emerges’ and ‘The essential point which requires constantly to be borne in mind is that office-holders are fiduciaries charged with the duty of protecting, getting in, realising and ultimately passing on to others assets and property which belong not to themselves but to creditors or beneficiaries of one kind or another. They are appointed because of their professional skills and experience and they are expected to exercise proper commercial judgment in the carrying out of their duties. Their fundamental obligation is, however, a duty to account, both for the way in which they exercise their powers and for the property which they deal with.’
With a fiduciary duty to account it was for the office-holder who seeks remuneration at a particular level to justify his claim. Ferris J identified three consequences as following from this general equitable principle: ‘First, office-holders must expect to give full particulars in order to justify the amount of any claim for remuneration. If they seek to be remunerated upon, or partly upon, the basis of time spent in the performance of their duties they must do significantly more than list the total number of hours spent by them or other fee-earning members of their staff and multiply this total by a sum claimed to be the charging rate of the individual whose time was spent. They must explain the nature of each main task undertaken, the considerations which led them to embark upon that task and, if the task proved more difficult or expensive to perform than at first expected, to persevere in it. The time spent needs to be linked to this explanation, so that it can be seen what time was devoted to each task. The amount of detail which needs to be provided will, however, be proportionate to the case.
The charging rate claimed must also be proved by evidence; and what is relevant is not the charging rate of the particular individual but the broad average or general rate charged by persons of the relevant status and qualifications who carry out this kind of work (cf in relation to solicitors’ charges Jones v Secretary of State for Wales [1997] 2 All ER 507, [1997] 1 WLR 1008 and the cases there referred to).
Second, office-holders must keep proper records of what they have done and why they have done it. Without contemporaneous records of this kind they will be in difficulty in discharging their duty to account. While a retrospective reconstruction of what has happened may have to be looked at if there is no better source of information, it is unlikely to be as reliable as a contemporaneous record. Office-holders whose records are inadequate are liable to find that doubts are resolved against them because they are unable to fulfil their duty to account for what they have received and to justify their claim to retain part of it for themselves by way of remuneration.
Third, the test of whether office-holders have acted properly in undertaking particular tasks at a particular cost in expenses or time spent must be whether a reasonably prudent man, faced with the same circumstances in relation to his own affairs, would lay out or hazard his own money in doing what the office-holders have done. It is not sufficient, in my view, for office-holders to say that what they have done is within the scope of the duties or powers conferred upon them. They are expected to deploy commercial judgment, not to act regardless of expense. This is not to say that a transaction carried out at a high cost in relation to the benefit received, or even an expensive failure, will automatically result in the disallowance of expenses or remuneration. But it is to be expected that transactions having these characteristics will be subject to close scrutiny.’ Though the aim is to reward the value of the services rendered by the office-holder, this need not equate to time spent, as to which Ferris J said: ‘In my judgment it is vital to recognise three things in this field. First, time spent represents a measure not of the value of the service rendered but of the cost of rendering it. Remuneration should be fixed so as to reward value, not so as to indemnify against cost. Second, time spent is only one of a number of relevant factors, the others being, as I have said, those which find expression in r 2.47 and similar rules. The giving of proper weight to these factors is an essential part of the process of assessing the value, as distinct from the cost, of what has been done. Third, it follows from the first two points that, as the task is to assess value rather than cost, the tribunal which fixes remuneration needs to be supplied with full information on all the factors which I have mentioned.’
As regards controls, he regarded the Rules and other regulations as ‘somewhat sketchy, ill-expressed and consequently liable to be misunderstood’ but he took the view that ‘if the matter is approached from the standpoint of general principle . . a much firmer picture emerges’. He continued: ‘The essential point which requires constantly to be borne in mind is that office-holders are fiduciaries charged with the duty of protecting, getting in, realising and ultimately passing on to others assets and property which belong not to themselves but to creditors or beneficiaries of one kind or another. They are appointed because of their professional skills and experience and they are expected to exercise proper commercial judgment in the carrying out of their duties. Their fundamental obligation is, however, a duty to account, both for the way in which they exercise their powers and for the property which they deal with.’
It is a feature of the fiduciary duty to account that it is for the office-holder who seeks remuneration at a particular level to justify his claim. Ferris J identified three consequences as following from this general equitable principle: ‘First, office-holders must expect to give full particulars in order to justify the amount of any claim for remuneration. If they seek to be remunerated upon, or partly upon, the basis of time spent in the performance of their duties they must do significantly more than list the total number of hours spent by them or other fee-earning members of their staff and multiply this total by a sum claimed to be the charging rate of the individual whose time was spent. They must explain the nature of each main task undertaken, the considerations which led them to embark upon that task and, if the task proved more difficult or expensive to perform than at first expected, to persevere in it. The time spent needs to be linked to this explanation, so that it can be seen what time was devoted to each task. The amount of detail which needs to be provided will, however, be proportionate to the case.
The charging rate claimed must also be proved by evidence; and what is relevant is not the charging rate of the particular individual but the broad average or general rate charged by persons of the relevant status and qualifications who carry out this kind of work (cf in relation to solicitors’ charges Jones v Secretary of State for Wales [1997] 2 All ER 507, [1997] 1 WLR 1008 and the cases there referred to).
Second, office-holders must keep proper records of what they have done and why they have done it. Without contemporaneous records of this kind they will be in difficulty in discharging their duty to account. While a retrospective reconstruction of what has happened may have to be looked at if there is no better source of information, it is unlikely to be as reliable as a contemporaneous record. Office-holders whose records are inadequate are liable to find that doubts are resolved against them because they are unable to fulfil their duty to account for what they have received and to justify their claim to retain part of it for themselves by way of remuneration.
Third, the test of whether office-holders have acted properly in undertaking particular tasks at a particular cost in expenses or time spent must be whether a reasonably prudent man, faced with the same circumstances in relation to his own affairs, would lay out or hazard his own money in doing what the office-holders have done. It is not sufficient, in my view, for office-holders to say that what they have done is within the scope of the duties or powers conferred upon them. They are expected to deploy commercial judgment, not to act regardless of expense. This is not to say that a transaction carried out at a high cost in relation to the benefit received, or even an expensive failure, will automatically result in the disallowance of expenses or remuneration. But it is to be expected that transactions having these characteristics will be subject to close scrutiny. ‘

Judges:

Ferris J

Citations:

Times 15-Jul-1997, [1998] 1 BCLC 638

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 37, Insolvency Rules 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Mirror Group Newspapers Plc v Maxwell and Others ChD 30-May-2000
The settling of remuneration paid to a court-appointed receiver was not an assessment of costs in the Chancery Division, and the court fee normally payable for such an assessment did not apply. . .
Cited – In Re Cabletel Installations Ltd 1-Jul-2004
The court criticised the remuneration claimed by the insolvency office-holder were work had been carried out at too senior a level, and the calculation was an uncritical application of the time spent, and where there were more and lengthier meetings . .
Cited – Brook v Reed CA 25-Mar-2011
The court was asked ‘What relation should the costs and remuneration bear to the circumstances, and in particular the size, of the bankruptcy?’ The bankrupt had considered that the costs first awarded to the trustee in bankruptcy and the trustee’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.83755

McDougall v Tawse: ScSf 14 Sep 2001

Application was made to deny a certificate that a case had been fit for the employment of counsel, despite his not actually having appeared in court. The matter was a personal injury case with an order obtained without attendance.
Held: There is no reason why counsel need appear before such sanction can be given.

Citations:

[2001] ScotSC 17

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Citing:

Cited – Williams v Fraser 1991
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166525

Sarwar v Alam: CA 19 Sep 2001

Litigation had followed an accident. The claimant, a passenger, sought and won damages for personal injuries. He had taken out legal expenses insurance, and at dispute was the recovery of the cost of that insurance. He had been unaware of having the insurance and had also paid out for after the event insurance. He sought to recover the costs of the legal expenses insurance. A challenge of a judge’s award in costs only proceedings should only rarely succeed. In such questions, the danger of conflicts of interest between the various insurance companies is real, and had been provided for in the regulations. Solicitors should inspect the client’s various policies to clarify what legal expenses insurance was available. The need to provide free choice of solicitors did not override common provisions for small cases referring such matters to insurance panel solicitors. In a case where a passenger sued his driver, it was not appropriate for his choice of solicitor to be determined by the defendant’s insurers, and after the event legal expenses insurance was a proper and reasonable expense and should be recoverable.

Judges:

Judge Halbert, District Judge Wallace

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1401, [2002] RTR 12, [2001] 4 All ER 541, [2002] 1 WLR 125, [2002] 1 Costs LR 37, [2002] Lloyd’ Rep IR 126, [2002] PIQR P15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, Civil Procedure Rules 44.12A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Callery v Gray (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2001
A plaintiff could recover the costs of insuring himself against the risk of having to pay the other sides costs, and finding his own costs irrecoverable (after the event or ATE insurance). The earlier case had decided that such premiums may be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Damages, Costs, Legal Professions, Insurance

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166184

Leyvand v Barasch and Others: ChD 16 Mar 2000

In a partnership dispute the defendants sought an order for security for costs against the claimant, saying that he was ordinarily resident abroad. It was held that under the new regime such an order would not follow as a matter of course. The sole test was what was the just in the particular case. The existence of assets within the jurisdiction was relevant, and in this case the claimant had lived for a long time here, and had substantial assets here, and such an order was unnecessary.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Mar-2000, Times 23-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83057

Nationwide Building Society v Various Solicitors: ChD 20 Jul 1999

The case draws a distinction in group and consolidated actions between costs incurred on the general points which have been common to the parties and which brought the actions together and costs incurred in dealing with matters specific to the separate particular matters which had been brought together.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Sep-1999, [1999] 20 July Unreported

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pepper (UK) Ltd (T/A Engage Credit) v Fox (P/A Barry Fox, Solicitors) ChNI 14-Jan-2016
Application by Pepper (UK) Ltd t/a Engage Credit against Emma Jane Fox practising as Barry Fox, Solicitors for the delivery up of all papers, documents and title deeds in the possession and custody of the Solicitors and belonging to the plaintiff . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.84231

Rybak and Others v Langbar International Ltd: ChD 18 Feb 2011

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 452 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lockley v National Blood Transfusion Service CA 1992
There was an interlocutory dispute over the granting of an extension of time for service of the defence. The legally aided plaintiff challenged the costs orders made by the district registrar and the judge. Each ordered that the costs be the . .

Cited by:

Principal judgment – Rybak and Others v Langbar International Ltd ChD 17-Feb-2011
Application for wasted costs order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.430287

Practice Statement (Judicial review: Costs): Admn 17 May 2004

The general rule under the Civil Procedure Rules that when a court order was silent as to costs, no party would be liable for the costs of another party did not apply in applications for leave to proceed on a judicial review. An order made on such an application would carry by implication an order for costs in cause.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 20-May-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Costs

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.197753

Sir Elton Hercules John and Others v Price Waterhouse and Others: ChD 12 Jul 2001

The applicants were auditors to the company, and, having successfully defended a claim by the company, sought their costs on an indemnity basis, rather than on the standard basis as awarded.
Held: The auditors, as also for directors, were given a right under Table A to an indemnity, and that indemnity was not displaced by an otherwise comprehensive terms of appointment letter. Even though they might have the right to commence a second action to recover the difference between the costs award and their rights under the appointment, a court should be reluctant, in costs proceedings, to make an award on this basis. Even though the company may have no effective defence to a second claim, the costs in the case before the court should be on the standard basis.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Ferris

Citations:

Times 22-Aug-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 391, [2002] EWCA Civ 899

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Companies (Tables A to F) Regulations 1985 (1985 No 805)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Costs

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.159956

Petrograde Inc v Texaco Ltd: CA 23 May 2000

The award of costs under Rule 36.21 on an indemnity basis is not intended to be penal, and the court must look at what was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Lord Woolf said: ‘However, it would be wrong to regard the rule [36.21] as producing penal consequences. An order for indemnity costs does not enable a claimant to receive more costs than he has incurred. Its practical effect is to avoid his costs being assessed at a lesser figure. When assessing costs on the standard basis the court will only allow costs `which are proportionate to the matters in issue’ and `resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably incurred or reasonably proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party’. On the other hand, where the costs are assessed on an indemnity basis, the issue of proportionality does not have to be considered. The court only considers whether the costs were unreasonably incurred or for an unreasonable amount. The court will then resolve any doubt in favour of the receiving party. Even on an indemnity basis, however, the receiving party is restricted to recovering only the amount of costs which have been incurred (see Part 44.3 and Part 44.5).
The ability of the court to award costs on an indemnity basis and interest at an enhanced rate should not be regarded as penal because orders for costs, even when made on an indemnity basis, never actually compensate a claimant for having to come to court to bring proceedings. . . The power to order indemnity costs or higher rate interest is a means of achieving a fairer result for a claimant. If a defendant involves a claimant in proceedings after an offer has been made, and in the event, the result is no more favourable to the defendant than that which would have been achieved if the claimant’s offer had been accepted without the need for those proceedings, the message of Part 36.21 is that, prima facie, it is just to make an indemnity order for costs and for interest at an enhanced rate to be awarded. However, the indemnity order need not be for the entire proceedings nor, as I have already indicated, need the award of interest be for a particular period or at a particular rate. It must not however exceed the figure of 10 per cent referred to in Part 36.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR

Citations:

Unreported, 23 May 2000

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36.21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.341786

Hall v Rover Financial Services (GB) Ltd (t/a Land Rover Financial Services): CA 10 Oct 2002

The claimant had won her case, but been deprived of her costs. She claimed for conversion after she had purchased a car without knowledge of it having been on hire purchase, and after it was seized by the finance company. The judge had considered that she should have been suspicious.
Held: The judge had found that each of the circumstances which might have caused suspicion in other minds had failed to do so in the claimant’s mind. For a successful party to be deprived of her costs, any misconduct had to relate to the proceedings themselves. These issues related to credit, and not to the proceedings. The Civil Procedure Rules had not changed this.

Judges:

Tuckey, Longmore LLJ

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-2002, Gazette 21-Nov-2002

Statutes:

Hire Purchase Act 1974 27(2), Civil Procedure Rules 44.3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.178028

Regent Leisuretime Ltd and others v Skerrett and Another: CA 4 Jul 2006

The court set aside a first stage wasted costs order made by the judge below against the solicitors Reynolds Porter Chamberlain. The judge had been given no indication of the costs claimed and did not have material on which he could form a view as to whether significant unnecessary costs had been caused to be incurred by reason of the solicitor’s conduct. Also, once the costs in question were considered, Lloyd LJ found that they would likely be of an order that would be totally disproportionate to the costs involved in a second stage hearing, and ‘It seems to me that although an oral application in the course of the hearing is possible pursuant to paragraph 53, that is only likely to be sensible if the scope of the application to the costs said to have been wasted is narrow and clear; . .’

Judges:

Mummery, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1032

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 18-Apr-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order.
Held: The court only has jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Thames Chambers Solicitors v Miah QBD 16-May-2013
The solicitors appealed against a wasted costs order. They had accepted instructions to act for a bankrupt in pursuing a debt before his discharge and without the debt having been assigned to him by the trustee in bankruptcy.
Held: The order . .
Cited – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 1) SC 20-Jul-2016
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.243366

Malkinson v Trim: CA 20 Sep 2002

The solicitor had successfully defended proceedings brought against him personally, but employing his own firm to represent him. He sought his costs. The claimant disputed his right to costs.
Held: The claimant had served a notice of discontinuance of the action, and by doing so made himself liable for costs. The judge had applied the London Scottish case. There should be no difference between work done by an employee of a solicitor, and work done by a partner. Rule 48.6 had not changed the situation.

Judges:

Potter LJ, Chadwick LJ, Wall J

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-2002, Gazette 17-Oct-2002

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 48.6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley Crawford and Chester CA 30-May-1884
Where an action is brought against a solicitor who defends it in person and obtains judgment, he is entitled upon taxation to the same costs as if he had employed a solicitor, except in respect of items which the fact of his acting directly renders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.177397

Kostic v Chaplin and others: ChD 7 Dec 2007

The claimant had brought contentious probate proceedings, and succeeded in establishing that the deceased had not had capacity to make the will. The defendant beneficiaries appealed an order for costs.
Held: The costs of the trial itself should follow the event with only a limited element before that coming out of the estate. Two historical principles for the award of costs in probate cases survived the Civil Procedure Rules. A positive case has to be made out before departing from the general rule that costs should follow the event, and also that ‘the two great principles upon which the court acts’ are neither exhaustive nor rigidly prescriptive. They are guidelines, not straitjackets, and their application will depend on the facts of the particular case. The ‘touchstone should be whether it was the testator’s own conduct which had led to his will ‘being surrounded with confusion or uncertainty in law or fact’. If that causal test is satisfied, it should not in my judgment matter for the purposes of the first rule whether the problem is one relating to the state in which the deceased has left his testamentary papers (for example where a will cannot be found, or where there is a question whether a will has been revoked), or whether the problem relates to the capacity of the deceased to make a will.’ In this case th edeceased’s conduct may be regarded as the proper cause of the disupte, though ‘it can be a very difficult question to determine the precise point at which eccentricity shades into incapacity.’

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2909 (Ch), Times 11-Jan-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Spiers v English 1907
The two main principles which should guide the court in determining that costs in an appropriate suit are not to follow the event are firstly where the testator or those interested in the residue had been the cause of the litigation and secondly, if . .
Cited – Mitchell v Gard 1-Dec-1963
The next of kin of the deceased, who had unsuccessfully opposed the will in a testamentary suit tried before Byles J and a jury, applied for their costs to be paid out of the estate.
Held: Sir James Wilde said: ‘The basis of all rule on this . .
Cited – Boughton v Knight 1873
The jury found that the testator had not been of sound mind, memory and understanding when he made the will propounded by the plaintiffs.
Held: The court contrasted a person of ‘sound mind’ with one suffering from ‘delusions’. The amount and . .
Cited – Twist v Tye 1902
The three plaintiff executors, who had unsuccessfully propounded a will, were also residuary legatees under the will, had themselves managed the deceased’s affairs before she made it, and had had ample opportunity of forming an opinion as to her . .
Cited – Davies v Gregory 1873
After a contested application, the court pronounced in favour of the will.
Held: Sir James Hannen did not agree that the first rule or exception applied only in cases where the state in which the deceased left his papers had given rise to the . .
Cited – Re Cutliffe’s Estate CA 1958
In attacking the will, the unsuccessful defendants had pleaded undue influence as well as lack of due execution and want of knowledge and approval, but their evidence had been disbelieved. They complained that in awarding costs against them the . .
Cited – Re Plant deceased 1926
The court considered whether the executor should have his costs out of the estate unless he had acted unreasonably. Scrutton LJ warned: ‘I should be reluctant to do anything to create the idea that unsuccessful litigants might get their costs out of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Wills and Probate

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.261898

Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Another: CA 26 Jul 2001

The appeal court had previously remitted a matter to the Restrictive Practices court, having found that the court might be biased. The parties having settled the main litigation, they sought the additional costs incurred by them in correcting what they said was the fault of the court. The Lord Chancellor responded that the parties were acting only in a representative capacity, the court hearing was not determinative of their rights, thus their Human rights had not been infringed. No representative order had been made. The request failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Robert Walker, Master of the Rolls

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1217

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51, Human Rights Act 1998, Restrictive Practices Court (Resale Prices) Rules 1976 9(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Administrative, Costs, Human Rights

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159908

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 – is a matter entrusted to the discretion of the trial judge; (iii) the starting point for the exercise of discretion is that costs should follow the event; nevertheless, (iv) the judge may make different orders for costs in relation to discrete issues – and, in particular, should consider doing so where a party has been successful on one issue but unsuccessful on another issue and, in that event, may make an order for costs against the party who has been generally successful in the litigation; and (v) the judge may deprive a party of costs on an issue on which he has been successful if satisfied that the party has acted unreasonably in relation to that issue; (vi) an appellate court should not interfere with the judge’s exercise of discretion merely because it takes the view that it would have exercised that discretion differently.’

Judges:

Chadwick LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 535

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Factortame Ltd and others v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions) CA 28-Jan-2002
A part 36 offer had been made and declined. A significant amendment was made to the defendant’s pleadings on the basis of information which had always been available to him. The claimant then accepted the payment in. Should the claimant be regarded . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others ChD 23-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – Day v Day CA 14-Mar-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147514

Regina v Her Majesty’s Coroner for Inner London North ex parte Peter Francis Touche: CA 21 Mar 2001

The applicant’s wife had died of a cerebral haemorrhage, the result of severe hypertension, possibly secondary to eclampsia. The coroner decided not to hold an inquest. The issue raised was whether he was required to hold an inquest because there was reasonable cause to suspect that she had died an unnatural death.
Held: The coroner was wrong to conclude that a death was not unnatural within the Act where the death had occurred at a hospital when the hospital had failed adequately to monitor her blood pressure. The failure of a hospital to maintain standards of care was of concern to the public, and one of the coroners. Costs were awarded to the claimant both at the Court of Appeal and at the High Court, against the coroner when directing a new inquest into the death when there was no other means of indemnifying him for the expense to which he had been put, even though the coroner was a judicial officer who had conducted himself impeccably.

Citations:

Gazette 17-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 383, [2001] QB 1206

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Coroners Act 1988 8(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Doubted – Regina v Lincoln Coroner, Ex Parte Hay Admn 19-Feb-1999
Coroners Society recommended to publish pre-trial guidelines and prepare a list of witnesses to be called showing in each case a brief summary of the evidence expected to be given by that witness in order to assist parties at inquests. A costs order . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Costs

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147476

John Weth and Others v Her Majesty’s Attorney General and Others: CA 23 Feb 2001

A charitable trust had been established. Protracted disputes had taken place, and the burden of the costs required to be apportioned. The financial practices of the charity had been informal leading to confusion, and dissension. An intervention by the Charity Commission had been opposed. The judge had refused an order that the trustees who had been removed should be indemnified from the fund.
Held: The order made was within the discretion available to the judge. He had obtained all the necessary information about the matter. The appeals entered into by the applicants had no possible benefit for the charity. It was pointless, and there was no reason for the applicants to be indemnified in costs.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Holman

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 263

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marley and 11 Others v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd Co PC 15-Oct-1990
BANKING – EQUITY, TRUSTS, PROBATE ADMINISTRATOR’S POWERS OF INVESTMENT Bank as sole administrator cannot invest estate funds in its own deposits in the absence of express sanction in the trust instrument.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: ‘A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Costs

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147450

A Local Authority v A Mother and Child: CA 20 Dec 2000

A solicitor claimed the sum of andpound;59.00 for the cost of preparing his legal aid bill for assessment. The court had disallowed the costs of an in-house costs draftsman preparing the bill. The Costs Procedure Rules would generally allow something toward such a charge. The Court of Appeal had given leave to appeal although the amount at issue in this case was less than ten pounds.
Held: The Act specified what sums could be paid from the legal aid fund. The rules made under the Act specified a sum of andpound;71.75 toward the cost. Historically the preparation of a bill is seen as part of a solicitors overheads, and thus not claimable. This changed under the Civil Procedure Rules, and the solicitor argued that the Rules over-rode the Regulations so as to remove the limitation. However there is no new additional category by which changes under the rules have become vires. The Civil Procedure Rules go through no process of democratic control. The Rules have no power to override either legislation or subordinate legislation.

Judges:

The President. Lord Justice Laws, And Lady Justice Hale

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 339

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 339) 107, Legal Aid Act 1988 6(1), Civil Procedure Rules 2.16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Johnson v Reed Corrugated Cases Ltd 1992
The costs principles set out in the Masters’ Practice Notes and which endorsed the dual approach of assessing and adding an element to reflect the value at stake in litigation as well as the hourly expense rate of providing that service in all . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Family, Legal Aid, Constitutional, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147372

Amber v Stacey: CA 15 Nov 2000

The defendant challenged an order that he should pay the plaintiff’s costs, having made an offer in correspondence which was not accepted.
Held: The claimant had exaggerated his claim, but the defendant’s offer had been inadequate. The judge’s order was fundamentally sound but an adjustment was made to require the claimant to pay half of the defendant’s costs for a period after an offer had been made.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown And Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 286, [2001] 2 All ER

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Elgindata Ltd (2) CA 15-Jul-1992
A successful plaintiff who had not been shown to have behaved improperly or unreasonably was not to have his costs reduced or be ordered to pay any part of his opponents costs for having pursued some unsuccessful points.
Nourse LJ said that . .
Cited – Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (In Receivership) v Koshy and Others (No 2) ChD 30-Mar-2000
The new Civil Procedure Rules had not substantially affected the rules on costs following the event of a trial. The discretion in a judge as to the order for costs had been correctly stated in Elgindata, and approved in Phonographic Performance Ltd . .
Cited – 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 by:

Cited – Crouch v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust CA 15-Oct-2004
The defendants sought approval of their practice of making a written offer to the claimants rather than making a payment into court. The offer had been accepted but only after the defendant had purported to withdraw it.
Held: ‘it certainly is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147319

Lewis v Commissioner of Inland Revenue and others: CA 2 Nov 2000

The liquidator in a creditor’s voluntary liquidation sought a direction that he could take his costs of pursuing former directors in actions for wrongful trading and preferences, out of realised funds. It was held that nothing in the rules or Act supported the contention that such costs would be expenses of the voluntary winding up. There was no automatic priority of such expenses over preferential creditors, and the liquidator must look to the court’s discretion to recover any such costs.’Rule 4.218 tells us both what are the expenses to be treated as the expenses of a winding up and what priority they have inter se.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

Gazette 30-Nov-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 274, [2001] 3 All ER 499

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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, Company, Costs

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147307

Richard John Cole v British Telecommunications Plc: CA 4 Jul 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 208

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Costs

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147241

Redland Aggregates Limited v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited: CA 29 Jul 1999

The defendant building contractor sought a stay of collection of the sub-contractor’s bill of costs pending the determination of the House of Lords.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Auld LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 2028

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Redland Aggregates Limited v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited CA 11-Dec-1998
The opinion which the contract provided for the main contractor to hold under the 1984 edition of the FCEC form had to be bona fide, and perhaps also reasonable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Costs

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146943

Goodger and Goodger v Willis and Watts: CA 15 Jul 1999

The claimants bought land from their neighbours, but it was not appreciated that the land was registered and the transfer was not in proper form. The neighbour then transferred the land on again to others. They claimants obtained an order for rectification against the second purchaser and for costs. The second purchaser now sought leave to appeal the order for costs.
Held: The defendant could have consented to the rectification, and had he done so, the costs would have been avoided. The order was correct though not necessarily to the extent that he should pay for the rectification itself. Limited leave granted.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1859

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Costs

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146774

Al-Ani v Shubber: CA 10 May 1999

The claimant sought leave to appeal an order refusing his application for assets to be released from an injunction obtained by his former solicitors to preserve assets against their claim for costs. The court deprecated the fact that a relatively minor defamation action had been allowed to generate considerable satellite litigation.
Held: the orders had been made properly and the request for leave to appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Swinton Thomas, Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1363, [1999] EWCA Civ 1498

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146278

Regina (Mendes and Another) v Southwark London Borough Council: CA 24 Mar 2009

The claimants appealed against the failure of the court to award them their costs after they had succeeded in correcting the respondent’s error in classifying their claim for housing assistance.
Held: The judge had failed to give reasons for making no award of costs. This was an error. The applicant’s solicitors had acted responsibly and given appropriate notice of the claim, and acting on a failure to respond. The claim had then been withdrawn by consent, each party making submissions on costs. The appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

Times 07-Apr-2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.332830

Devine v Franklin: QBD 2002

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1846 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hall and others v Stone CA 18-Dec-2007
The claimants appealed against a reduction in their costs awards after succeeding in their claims arising from road traffic incidents. The judge had awarded them only 60% of their costs and they appealed submitting that there was no reason why they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.263553

Joseph, Regina (on the Application Of) v Manches and Co: CA 29 Jan 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 188

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Thomas Watts and Co (a Firm) v Smith CA 16-Mar-1998
The court considered the status of an untaxed solicitor’s bill of costs against a client for whom he had acted in defamation proceedings. Sir Richard Scott V-C said: ‘It is a fact that [the client] never entered into any contract to pay the sums as . .

Cited by:

Cited – Truex v Toll ChD 6-Mar-2009
The bankrupt appealed against an order in bankruptcy made against her on application by her former solicitors in respect of their unpaid costs. The bankrupt said that since the bill was yet untaxed, it might be altered and could not base a statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.216711

Bailey v IBC Vehicles Limited: CA 27 Mar 1998

The claimant succeeded in an action for personal injuries. The defendants agreed damages with costs. The claimant was assisted financially by his union. The defendants objected to elements of the bill, and asked for evidence that the bill was not in breach of the indemnity principle. A letter was produced which stated that the union’s relationship with the solicitor was that the solicitors were entitled to make a full solicitor/client charge. The district judge held that they were entitled to disclosure of the relevant material.
Held: The Court were concerned about satellite litigation in assessment proceedings, but that there was no breach of the indemnity principle merely because the litigant was a supported by his union. The paying party agreed that the costs judge could be provided with the information he needed. The solicitor’s Client Care letter should be attached to the bill of costs for inspection for taxation of costs, in order to demonstrate that no more is being charged than would have been charged to the client. The court attached considerable importance to the fact that solicitors are officers of the court and that they are trusted not to mislead the court or to allow it to be misled. Accordingly, the court indicated that it would expect solicitors to disclose the existence of a limit on the fees which they could recover from their client.

Judges:

Butler-Sloss, Henry and Judge LJJ

Citations:

Times 09-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 566, [1998] 3 All ER 570

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement.
Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the . .
Cited – Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another CA 27-Oct-2005
The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate.
Held: The absence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144044

Hi-Tek Bags Limited v Sun 99 Limited and Another: CA 18 Jul 1997

The defendant appealed an order requiring it to give security for costs under s726.
Held: There were clear reasons for doubting the amounts sought by the plaintiffs, but some sum was properly required, and a lower sum was substituted.

Judges:

Lord Justice Leggatt, Lord Justice Morritt, Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2141

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 726

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Costs

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.142538

Police of The Metropolis v Brown: QBD 31 Jul 2018

‘The appeal concerns the operation of the qualified one-way costs shifting regime (known as ‘QOCS’) contained in Section II of Part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’). The Judge decided that QOCS applied, automatically, to protect Ms Brown against any adverse costs order which might be made against her in the Police’s favour. The Judge’s reason for doing so, in summary, was that her claim included a claim for damages for personal injury which related to all the various parts of her claim, so that he had no discretion to disapply QOCS protection.’

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2471 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.625522

In re Moritz: CA 1960

Trustees had denied the defendants a sight of the exhibits to affidavits. Their’ counsel argued for a settled practice that where an application is made by trustees for directions of the Beddoe kind, then the proposed defendant beneficiaries should not necessarily see all the evidence relating to the dispute. Counsel for the proposed beneficiary defendants, argued that he should be entitled to attend argue for his clients, on all matters including ones based on the so-far denied exhibits, and that it was for the Judge to say if those arguments were heard in the presence of parties other than the trustees who sought the directions of the court, though where one was considering beneficiaries and where their trust estate might bear the expense of the proposed litigation, it was beneficiaries’ money that was being spent or being proposed to be spent.
Held: Wynn-Parry J said: ‘Speaking for myself, so far as I know, it has been the practice of this court, without exception, over a great many years, that where, in such a case as this, application is made by a trustee ex necessis where there are disputes, for directions from the court as to whether or not proceedings should be brought against the defendants, those defendants are not entitled to be heard upon that application. The court acts upon such evidence as is placed before it and it expresses itself one way or the other.’ and
‘As I understand it, the practice in this Division is that where a trustee finds it is compelled to ask for the directions of the court as to whether or not certain proceedings should be taken, while it is proper and indeed necessary to join the parties against whom the proposed relief is sought, those parties should not be present in Chambers when the matter is debated; and they should not be furnished with the evidence upon which the court is asked to act . . Very frequently, the leave to proceed is limited, for instance, up to discovery, but it would seem to me to be a quite unjustified inroad upon what I conceive to be a very useful practice if I were to allow this application and to allow the two defendants not merely to be present at the beginning of the proceedings when the originating summons is heard, but to remain there throughout those proceedings and to have all the evidence on which the trustees are asking the court for its directions. I know of no precedent for it, and, in my view, it is completely against the established practice.’

Judges:

Wynn-Parry LJ

Citations:

[1960] Ch 251

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam CA 1893
A trustee had unsuccessfully defended an action against the trust in detinue for the return of deeds. He now sought protection against a costs order. Costs having been awarded against a trustee in proceeding A, the trustee sought to be indemnified . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mulkerrins v Pricewaterhouse Coopers HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages from her former accountants for failing to protect her from bankruptcy. The receiver had unnecessarily caused great difficulties in making their claim that such an action vested in them. The defendants had subsequently, . .
Cited – 3 Individual Present Professional Trustees of 2 Trusts v an Infant Prospective Beneficiary of One Trust and others ChD 25-Jul-2007
The parties challenged under the 198 Act the right of trustees to seek a Beddoe order protecting themselves against an award of costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.185414

Tinto or Murray for Interdict (22): SCS 7 Mar 2019

The petitioner has succeeded in a request to have her husband’s chosen solicitors interdicted from acting for him. The parties now disputed the base for the costs of that application.

Citations:

[2019] ScotCS CSOH – 22

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Main decision – Tinto or Murray for Interdict (21) SCS 7-Mar-2019
Application to interdict a firm of solicitors from acting for the claimant’s husband in divorce proceedings.
Held: Granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.634503

Najib and Sons Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service: CACD 3 Jul 2018

The defendant applied for its costs. It had been convicted for a breach of the Regulations, but the Inspector had not had the power to make the request it had denied.
Held: ‘The present case is one in which the prosecution failed as a matter of law. Moreover, it failed because the offence with which the appellant was charged did not exist. In these circumstances the question whether costs have been incurred as a result of an unnecessary or improper act or omission by the prosecutor is one which naturally arises.
The fact is, however, that when the appellant sought a preliminary ruling in the Crown Court that the facts alleged did not amount to an offence within the scope of the Regulations, the judge after hearing four days of legal argument gave a detailed written judgment in which he rejected the appellant’s arguments. Then, when after pleading guilty to the charge in the light of the judge’s ruling the appellant applied for permission to appeal, permission was initially refused by the single judge on consideration of the papers. In those circumstances we think it impossible to say that the prosecution was improperly brought or that the case was improperly advanced by the respondent in the Crown Court. In particular, we think it impossible to say in those circumstances that it was or should have been plain that the prosecution case was without legal merit.’

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 1554, [2018] WLR(D) 409

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2010, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – M Najib and Sons Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service CACD 26-Apr-2018
The company appealed against its conviction under the 2010 Regulation for failing to provide the required assistance for the taking of samples by an inspector. The company admitted the facts but said that the cost of compliance was too high, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.619874

Peer International Corporation and others v Termidor Music Publishers and others: CA 23 Nov 2007

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1308

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Peer International Corporation and Others v Termidor Music Publishers Ktd and Another ChD 11-Dec-2002
The claimant company had acquired the copyrights to the works of several Cuban musicians. A law later passed by Cuba in 1960 had allowed the musicians to re-assign their copyrights.
Held: A title to property which had been given by English law . .
See Also – Peer International Corp and others v Termidor Music Publishers Ltd and Another ChD 25-May-2005
The claimants sought declarations as to the ownership of copyrights to music fom Cuba. Many witnesses would be required to give evidence from Cuba. Attempts to take evidence by video link from Cuba had failed. It was suggested that the judge might . .
See Also – Peer International Corporation and others v Termidor Music Publishers Ltd and others ChD 16-Nov-2006
Claim for English copyright of Cuban musical scores. . .
See Also – Peer International Corporation Southern Music Publishing Company Inc Peermusic (UK) Limited v Termidor Music Publishers Limited Termidor Musikverlag Gmbh and Co Kg -And-Editoria Musical De Cuba CA 30-Jul-2003
Peer sought declarations that they were the owners, or licensees, of the UK copyright in musical works composed by Cuban nationals, relying on assignments in writing by the composers and in some instances by their heirs. The defendants claimed under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.261954

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence: Admn 5 Dec 2002

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Maurice Kay J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2712 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) v Prime Minister and others Admn 17-Dec-2002
CND sought an advisory declaration as to the meaning of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which had given Iraq ‘a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations’ and whether the resolution authorised states to take military action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.241521

Chapman v Chapman: ChD 1985

The plaintiff had been awarded her costs in a probate action, but had then failed to commence proceedings for taxation in time. When her solicitors did proceed, they gave no notice. She appealed an award of nominal costs only.
Held: Order 3 rule 6 was general in its terms, and applied in such applications also. After a delay of more than three months, she should have given notice of her intention to apply for taxation. This was however only an irregularity. The defendant had been unable to show any prejudice from the delay, and the court would not infer any. The master’s order would be discharged. The solicitors charges on presenting the bill would however be automatically disallowed.

Judges:

Sir Robert Megarry VC

Citations:

[1985] 1 All ER 757, [1985] 1 WLR 599

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pelling v Pelling CA 15-Jan-1997
The appellant wished to appeal orders for costs made against him in family proceedings. The respondent had filed her bill of costs out of time, with no explanation of the delay. He contended that there was no foundation for the court to exercise its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.182891

Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd: 1985

A costs judge does not have any power to order discovery to be given: he does not have any power to override a right of privilege. But he has a duty if the respondent raises a relevant factual issue to require the claimant to prove the facts on which he relies. The claimant alone chooses what evidence and to what extent he will waive his privilege. The [costs judge] then has to decide the issue of facts on the evidence. In considering whether he is satisfied by the evidence, the [costs judge] will no doubt take into account that the claimant may have a legitimate interest in not disputing the most obvious or complete evidence and may prefer to rely on oral evidence rather than producing privileged legal documents. It must not be a sham or fanciful dispute.

Judges:

Hobhouse J

Citations:

[1985] 1 WLR 689

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd (2) CA 1988
In considering what evidence can be used in mitigation of damages in defamation, it is necessary to draw a distinction between evidence which is put forward to show that the plaintiff is a man of bad reputation and evidence which is already before . .

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 . .
See Also – Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd (2) CA 1988
In considering what evidence can be used in mitigation of damages in defamation, it is necessary to draw a distinction between evidence which is put forward to show that the plaintiff is a man of bad reputation and evidence which is already before . .
Cited – Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another CA 27-Oct-2005
The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate.
Held: The absence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.182519