Category: Costs

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, The Secretary of State for Defence (2): Admn 5 Dec 2002

The claimants intended to seek a judicial review requesting an interpretation of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. They sought first, an order pre-emptively to limit their liability for costs.
Held: To make such a protective costs order, the court must be satisfied that the issues raised were truly of great public and general importance, and that the applicant properly appreciated the merits of the application proposed, and third the court must have regard to the financial resources of the various parties. In this case those tests were satisfied, and the court made an order. When such an application should be made must vary according to the situation.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Maurice Kay J

Citations:

Times 27-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2712 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lord Chancellor’s Department ex parte Child Poverty Action Group Admn 6-Feb-1998
The claimant sought an order with regard to its costs in an anticipated application to the court. The application was refused. Requests in a public interest action for an advance order for costs could only be awarded in very exceptional . .
Cited – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte Trustees of the Council for the Protection of Rural England QBD 26-Oct-1999
The authority gave permission for a new shopping centre up to 600,000 sq ft as an urban project. The Trustees sought that the permission be set aside since the council had not undertaken an environmental impact assessment, and under the EC Treaty . .
See Also – The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others QBD 17-Dec-2002
The applicant sought an advisory order from the court to interpret the meaning of United Nations Security Council resolution no 1441 with regard to steps to be taken under the resolution in the event of the failure of Iraq to comply.
Held: A . .

Cited by:

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 . .
See Also – The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others QBD 17-Dec-2002
The applicant sought an advisory order from the court to interpret the meaning of United Nations Security Council resolution no 1441 with regard to steps to be taken under the resolution in the event of the failure of Iraq to comply.
Held: A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.178605

Regina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions and Heathrow Airport Limited ex parte Brian Scott and others: Admn 30 Mar 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 280

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions and Heathrow Airport Limited ex parte Brian Scott and others Admn 30-Mar-1999
The appellants were taxi drivers who said that the byelaw under which they were convicted was invalid, saying that they had not been properly advertised.
Held: ‘the degree of availability of the byelaws is not a reason for impugning the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Costs

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139544

Regina v Stafford Crown Court ex parte Wilf Gilbert (Staffs) Limited: Admn 22 Feb 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 167

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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

Licensing, Costs

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139431

Chief Constable of Derbyshire v Goodman and Newton: Admn 2 Apr 1998

Firearms licences were granted to the two respondents, but then revoked by the Chief Constable. They appealed to the Crown Court and their appeal was allowed. The judge, however, ordered the Chief Constable to pay the costs of the two respondents, and he appealed against that order.
Held: The appeal was allowed. May LJ said: ‘It should be said that the learned judge had found that the Chief Constable had acted entirely in good faith, and no criticism was levelled against him in the way in which this had been handled.’
Having considered a number of decided cases, he continued: ‘It is of course important to say that decisions as to costs are discretionary and that any court or tribunal exercising such discretion is obliged to take into account all relevant circumstances. One such relevant circumstance was that this was indeed a police authority performing a statutory licensing function. This will not be determinative of all cases, but it is important that the tribunal takes into account that, generally speaking, a cost order adverse to such an authority would not be made unless there was some good reason for doing so, which was more than the fact that the other party to the contest had succeeded.’ He concluded: ‘In my view, this is a borderline case so far as costs are concerned. I can certainly see some force in [counsel’s] submissions, but exercising afresh, as in my view we are entitled to do, the discretion which Judge Morrison exercised, I consider on balance that this is not a case where costs ought to have been ordered against the Chief Constable. He acted, as the judge held, in complete good faith and, in those circumstances, the costs order ought not to have been made against him.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 390

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth QBD 10-May-2000
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs, Police

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138511

Regina v Lord Chancellor’s Department ex parte Child Poverty Action Group: Admn 6 Feb 1998

The claimant sought an order with regard to its costs in an anticipated application to the court. The application was refused. Requests in a public interest action for an advance order for costs could only be awarded in very exceptional circumstances. The discretion to make a PCO should be exercised in a case involving a public interest challenge: (i) the court must be satisfied that the issues raised are truly ones of general public importance; (ii) the court must be satisfied, following short argument, that it has a sufficient appreciation of the merits of the claim that it can be concluded that it is in the public interest to make the order; (iii) the court must have regard to the financial resources of the applicant and respondent, and the amount of costs likely to be in issue; (iv) the court will be more likely to make an order where the respondent clearly has a superior capacity to bear the costs of the proceedings than the applicant, and where it is satisfied that, unless the order is made, the applicant will probably discontinue the proceedings, and will be acting reasonably in so doing.

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

Times 27-Feb-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 151, [1999] 1 WLR 347

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, The Secretary of State for Defence (2) Admn 5-Dec-2002
The claimants intended to seek a judicial review requesting an interpretation of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. They sought first, an order pre-emptively to limit their liability for costs.
Held: To make such a protective . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Approved – Village Residents’ Association Ltd v An Bord Pleanala (No 2) 2000
(Irish High Court) The court faced the first application for a Protective Costs Order (PCO) in the High Court of Ireland.
Held: There was jurisdiction to make such an order, but it was difficult in the abstract to identify the type or types of . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and Another FD 12-Apr-2006
The petitioner intended to seek a declaration as to her marital status. She and the respondent had married in a civil ceremony in British Columbia in 2003. She sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to section 11(3) of the 1973 Act so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138272

Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others: ChD 29 Nov 2016

Application by the Defendants for security for costs.

Judges:

Nugee J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3065 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 27-Jul-2016
The claimants alleged several torts had been involved in a substantial fraud on them by means of a funding loan. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Holyoake v Candy and Another QBD 24-Jan-2017
The claimant sought to have access to his personal information held by the defendant. The defendant relied upon the legal professional privilege exemption. . .
See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 27-Feb-2017
Applications for further disclosure on the grounds of collateral waiver. . .
See Also – Candy and Others v Holyoake and Another CA 28-Feb-2017
Appeal against grant of ‘notification injunction’ . .
See Also – Candy v Holyoake and Others QBD 2-Mar-2017
Mr Candy claimed remedies for what he alleged were completed or threatened wrongs in the form of breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’) against five defendants, one of whom had filmed . .
See Also – Candy v Holyoake and Others (No 2) QBD 22-Nov-2017
. .
See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 21-Dec-2017
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.571985

FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Mankarious and Others: ChD 15 Nov 2011

A costs order was to be made. The court now considered whether it should be against one defendant alone, or against all defendants jointly and severally.
Held: The court should (i) make a declaration of liability for breach of fiduciary duty on the part of Cedar for having failed to obtain the claimants’ fully informed consent in respect of the 10 m Euros, and (ii) order Cedar to pay such sum to the claimants, but (iii) refuse to grant the claimants a proprietary remedy in respect of the monies.

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2999 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Mankarious and Others ChD 5-Sep-2011
The claimants sought return of what it said were secret commissions earned by the defendants when working as their agents, and the defendants counterclaimed saying that the commissions had been known to the claimants and that additional sums were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.448326

Grecoair Inc v Tilling and others: QBD 14 Jan 2009

The court has power to exercise disclosure orders in order to facilitate in an economical fashion a fair hearing of the application, although disclosure is often made without formal order.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Grecoair Inc v Tilling and others ComC 9-Dec-2004
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Thomson v Berkhamsted Collegiate School QBD 2-Oct-2009
Costs were to be sought against third parties to the action. A pupil had taken court action against the school seeking damages, alleging that it had failed to protect him from bullying. His action was discontinued. The school now sought its costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.375586

Ritter v Godfrey: CA 1920

The trial judge had refused to award costs to a successful defendant in a clinical negligence action. He was mainly influenced in this regard by the attitude the defendant had adopted in response to a letter before action, which, in the words of the headnote to the report, he had written in a tone of levity and in somewhat insulting terms.
Held: The court reviewed ealier cases and decided that the costs order should be overruled: ‘It is not easy to deduce from these authorities what the precise principles are that are to guide a judge in exercising his discretion over costs. And yet as the discretion is only to be exercised where there are materials upon which to exercise it, it seems important to ascertain the principles upon which a judge is to discern whether the necessary materials exist. In the case of a wholly successful defendant, in my opinion the judge must give the defendant his costs unless there is evidence that the defendant (1.) brought about the litigation, or (2.) has done something connected with the institution or the conduct of the suit calculated to occasion unnecessary litigation and expense, or (3.) has done some wrongful act in the course of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains.’

Judges:

Atkin LJ

Citations:

[1920] 2 KB 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Costs

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.223257

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Mahmed Ali: Admn 28 Apr 1997

The applicant sought an order declaring the property he occupied to be a nuisance, and that his landlords must execute repairs. The authority replied that the applicant had not allowed them access in order to carry out the works (Kerr). The stipendiary magistrate dismissed the application without giving reasons. The applicant argued that Kerr applied only to one subsection, and not the one at issue. Absent reasons for the decision, the applicant was deprived of the ability to pursue his case. The applicant sought his costs. The power to order costs against a magistrate was considered. Where costs had been incurred through the failure of the magistrate to do those things properly required of him or her then costs might well be awarded.

Citations:

HC Admin 417

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Kerr and the Hackney Borough Council 1996
. .
Cited – Regina v Newcastle Under Lyme Magistrates Court Ex Parte Massey and Others QBD 7-Oct-1994
Guidance was given on orders for payment of costs by justices who found themselves respondents to judicial review proceedings. Justices who refused consent to quash a committal and failing to appear may be subject to such orders. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Costs, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137362

Siegel v Pummell: QBD 4 Feb 2015

The court heard applications for costs, and on particular an application for indemnity costs, after the substantive judgment.

Judges:

Wilkie J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 195 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.542255

Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Margarita Martin: Admn 25 Oct 1996

The court has no power to make a wasted costs order in favour of a party opposing an ex parte application.

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1996, [1997] 1 All ER 307, [1996] EWHC Admin 151

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte T, a Firm of Solicitors Admn 25-Jun-1997
The firm of solicitors making an application for judicial review of the decision of the Board to institute criminal proceedings against them sought anonymity, saying that procedure which might prove them innocent would nevertheless damage their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136699

Regina (Gunn) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Regina (Kelly) v Same Regina (Zahid Khan) v Same: CA 14 Jun 2001

The new Regulations and court rules expressly reserved to a costs judge the decision about whether a costs order should be made against the Legal Services Commission. The former practice of the trial judge making this decision must no longer apply. The new rules did not operate to remove the power of the court to make similar costs orders in favour of public bodies. The test of whether such an order should be made remained whether it was just and equitable to do so. The court summarised the Cost Protection Regulations.
Lord Phillips MR said: ‘The new regulations introduce a two-stage process in relation to the recovery of costs in cases to which s 11(1) of the 1999 Act applies. The procedure to be followed is primarily to be derived from the costs regulations. The scheme is as follows.
Stage 1
The first stage involves the court dealing with the substance of the dispute, which we shall call the trial court. The role of the trial court is as follows. (i) To decide whether to make an order for costs against a funded litigant (the client) (reg 9(1)). (ii) To decide whether it is in a position to specify the amount, if any, to be paid by the client (reg 9(2)). (iii) To make a costs order against the client which either (a) specifies the amount, if any, to be paid by the client and states the amount of the full costs, or (b) does not specify the amount to be paid by the client (reg 9(3) and (4)). The order is described in the regulations as a s 11(1) costs order and is defined in both sets of regulations as a ‘costs order against a client where cost protection applies’. ‘Cost protection’ means ‘the limit set on costs awarded against a client set out in s 11(1) of the Act’. (iv) Where the order does not specify the amount to be paid by the client, to make, if it sees fit, findings of fact, as to the parties’ conduct in the proceedings or otherwise, relevant to the determination of the amount (reg 9(6)).
Stage 2
Stage 2 consists of the procedure to be followed to ascertain the amount of costs to be paid by the client against whom the trial court has made an order that does not specify the amount. Stage 2 also includes the procedure for determining whether an order for costs should be made against the Commission (reg 9(5)). The regulations in relation to Stage 2 allocate certain functions to ‘the Court’. Regulation 10(10) provides that in relation to proceedings in the Court of Appeal, High Court or county court the court’s functions ‘may be exercised’ by a costs judge or a district judge. While it is arguable that the High Court and the Court of Appeal also enjoy jurisdiction to exercise these functions, we think it plain that the scheme does not envisage that they should do so.
Regulation 2 provides that ‘Costs Judge’ has the same meaning as in the CPR. CPR 43.2(1)(b) provides that ‘Costs Judge’ means a taxing master of the Supreme Court.
The procedure under Stage 2 is as follows. (i) The party in whose favour the costs order has been made (the receiving party) may, within three months of the making of the costs order, request a hearing to determine the costs payable to him (reg 10(2)). (ii) The receiving party may, at the same time, seek a costs order against the Commission. (reg 10(3)(c)). We wish to take this opportunity to emphasise a fact that we understand is not generally appreciated. The three-month time limit for seeking an order against the Commission is mandatory-there is no power to extend it. (iii) The receiving party must, when making the request, file with the court and serve on the client and the regional director of the Commission (if an order is sought against the Commission): (a) a bill of costs; (b) a statement of resources; and (c) a written notice that a costs order is sought against the Commission (reg 10(3) and (4)). (iv) The client must file a statement of resources and serve this on the receiving party and the regional director (where a claim is made on the Commission) (reg 10(6)). (v) The court sets a date for the hearing (reg 10(9)). (vi) The court conducts the hearing, assesses the costs (if any) to be paid by the client and, where appropriate, makes a costs order against the Commission.
The costs regulations do not, in fact, expressly provide that the costs judge shall carry out the functions set out under (vi) above, but it is plainly implicit that he should. That this is part of his role is confirmed by the explicit provisions of the cost protection regulations.
The cost protection regulations set out the circumstances in which the costs judge or district judge may make a costs order against the Commission. Regulation 5(3) makes it plain that it is for the costs judge or district judge to be satisfied that it is just and equitable that provision for the costs should be made out of public funds and, in respect of proceedings at first instance, that the non-funded party will suffer severe financial hardship unless the order is made. In considering these matters the costs judge or district judge is expressly required to have regard to the resources of the non-funded party and of his partner – reg 5(6).
We have set out the new regulatory scheme in detail because we have concluded that it is not compatible with the current practices of the trial court. The function of deciding whether or not a costs order can and should be made against the Commission is now expressly assigned to the costs judge or district judge. He cannot make such an order unless and until the prescribed formalities have been completed. It is not open to the trial court to rule that it is just and equitable to make the order or to direct that the order is to be made before the prescribed formalities have been completed. Regulation 9(6) of the costs regulations permits the trial court, when making a costs order, to make findings of fact relevant to the determination of the amount to be paid by the client. We consider that it must also be open to the trial court to make any findings in relation to the conduct of the parties or facts that have emerged in the course of the proceedings that have relevance to the task to be performed by the costs judge or district judge. Beyond this the trial court should not go. It follows that, in the cases before us, this court should not have usurped the function of the costs judge-in these cases the taxing master-in deciding that it was just and equitable to make a costs order against the Commission and to direct that such an order be made. This practice must no longer be followed, whether in the county court, the High Court or the Court of Appeal.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Pill and Keene LJJ

Citations:

Times 20-Jun-2001, Gazette 05-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 891, [2001] 1 WLR 1634, [2001] CP Rep 107, [2001] 3 All ER 481, [2001] 2 Costs LR 263

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Community Legal Services (Costs) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 441)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Home Secretary ex parte Gunn CA 2000
A challenge under article 5 to decisions about a prisoner’s treatment were misconceived in the context of the Secretary of State’s refusal to transfer a prisoner to open conditions with a view to improving his prospects of release: ‘[Article 5(4)] . .

Cited by:

Cited – D and D W v Portsmouth Hospital NHS; in re W (A Child) CA 3-May-2006
The claimants had sought court orders against the hospital to secure continuing life-supporting treatment for their daughter who had been born very severely disabled. The Trust now sought their costs from the various actions.
Held: The parents . .
Cited – Floyd and Another v Legal Services Commission QBD 28-Apr-2010
The claimant had succeeded in an action against her legally aided opponent, but then delayed in making her claim for costs against the respondent. The costs judge said that the CPR did not apply, and that he had no discretion to extend the time . .
Cited – Leeds City Council v Price and Others QBD 4-Apr-2011
The council had successfully defended a case brought by the defendant under legal aid. The parties now disputed whether it could recover the costs from the Legal Service Commission. The LSC answered that it had not been given proper notice of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136149

Times Newspapers Ltd v Chohan: CA 22 Jun 2001

The limitation period on collection of an award of costs, must run from the date of the costs certificate. It was only at that point when it became enforceable. It would be an abuse to bring an action for enforce the costs award before that date. The word enforceable had to mean enforceable in a practical way. Until certified there was nothing to enforce.

Judges:

Aldous LJ, Robert Walker LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ

Citations:

Gazette 26-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 964

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Chohan v Times Newspapers Limited; Singh and Choudry (a Firm) and Choudry CA 4-Dec-1998
. .
See Also – Chohan v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 25-Feb-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Limitation

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136154

Society of Lloyd’s v Jaffray: ComC 26 Jan 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Commercial 174

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Costs

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135799

The Secretary of State For Trade and Industry v John Backhouse: CA 26 Jan 2001

Although the director of the companies being wound up was not himself a party to the winding up process, it was clear that he had exercised such entire control of them as to have treated them as an extension of himself. He had arranged for the proceedings to be resisted disregarding the interests of creditors, and for the purpose only of protecting his own personal reputation. In such circumstances it was proper to order him to pay the costs of the proceedings himself.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1222

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Company

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135604

Haigh v Westminster Magistrates Court and Others: Admn 8 Dec 2017

The Claimant sought judicial review of an order made against him for payment of defence wasted costs after he withdrew his private prosecution against the defendants. The claimant said that he had been dilatory in his claim.
Held: ‘wasted costs proceedings are ancillary to the substantive proceedings (in this case the substantive application for judicial review). For the reasons already given, there is an onus on the applicant for a wasted costs order in particular to proceed with due expedition. The applicants in the present matter have not done that.’

Judges:

Gross LJ, Nicol J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3197 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.601437

Eurochoice Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Nov 2020

Procedure – Respondents application for order that appellant and its director be jointly and severally liable to pay costs of and incidental to appeal – Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to make costs order against non-party – Yes – Whether such direction appropriate having regard to circumstances of the case – Yes – Whether party entitled to rely on unavailable decision – No – Application allowed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 449 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656845

McKenna v MGN Ltd: QBD 16 Jul 2007

Eady J considered the consequences in costs of a claimant’s assertion of malice in a failed defamation case: ‘There are numerous examples of libel actions in which the fact that malice has been pleaded causes delay and increased cost out of all proportion to its ultimate utility in furthering the overriding objective or arriving at a just result. There need to be available, therefore, in the modern era of civil litigation, suitable disciplinary mechanisms for discouraging unrealistic or tactical pleas of malice. People need to think carefully before alleging bad faith against journalists, newspapers groups or any other defendant just for the sake of it. If such allegations lead to additional cost, but ultimately do not stand up to scrutiny, it is quite right that this should be reflected in determining who should pay.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC B12 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – McKenna v MGN Ltd QBD 28-Jul-2006
The claimant hypnotherapist said that the defendant had through its newspaper defamed him by accusing him of claiming a bogus PhD. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wakefield (T/A Wills Probate and Trusts of Weybridge) v Ford and Another QBD 29-Jan-2009
The claimant, who advised in the preparation of wills, claimed in defamation against the defendant solicitors saying in a letter to another firm of solicitors that he had admitted negligence. There had been a ruling that the occasion had qualified . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.261906

Hobson and others v Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors and others: QBD 18 May 2006

The applicants had instructed the various defendant firms of solicitors to act for them in recovering damages arising from their former emploment with British Coal. The defendants had charged them administrative fees, which under the scheme they said should not have been charged. A group litigation order was sought.
Held: The court severely criticised the claimants: ‘this application is, in my judgment, misconceived and constitutes a gross abuse of the system which has been devised for the pursuit of group litigation where there is a valid group litigation issue; as to which see later. Not only was the application itself misconceived, but also it has been pursued in a manner which is both heavy handed and inept.’
The claimants had not set out how the defendant solicitors would be liable, the claims would have different forms against different solicitors, and were fact sensitive as against each firm. The enforceability of the agreements had not been explored, nor any alternative form of dispute resolution, any proper exploration of other forms of funding by legal aid or insurance. Costs estimates indicated that the claimants had incurred costs of over one hundred thousand pounds pursuing claims against one firm amounting to one thousand pounds. The application failed.

Judges:

Sir Michael Turner

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1134 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242211

Alois Bauer v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 12 Dec 1967

ECJ Procedure – interest in taking legal proceedings – type of interest justifying an application to the court Costs – applications by officials of the European Communities – costs which one party has unreasonably caused the opposite party to incur (rules of procedure, second subparagraph of article 69(3) and article 70)

Citations:

C-15/67, [1967] EUECJ C-15/67

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Costs

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131845

Wallace and Another v Brian Gale and Associates (A Firm): CA 5 Mar 1998

Agreed order for payments of ‘costs of the action’ included legal fees before action but not disbursements.

Citations:

Times 05-Mar-1998, Gazette 25-Mar-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 239, [1998] Fam Law 400, [1998] 1 FLR 1091, [1997] 2 Costs LR 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Wallace and Another v Brian Gale and Associates (A Firm) CA 31-Mar-1997
Costs in action after Tomlin Order included the costs of implementing the order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90258

Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Company and Others: ComC 25 May 2001

When a claimant commenced litigating several issues, but succeeded only on some of the them, the rule allowing an award of costs to the generally successful party was not dependent upon questions of whether the party was reasonable to have raised them. The reasonableness of pursuing a point was not necessarily relevant. The sub-paragraph was distinct from other allowing issues as to the conduct of the parties. One purpose of the rules was to persuade parties to reduce the number of claims they made to encourage a reduction in the costs of litigation.

Judges:

Thomas J

Citations:

Times 25-May-2001, [2001] EWHC 500 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc; In re Latrefeers Inc; Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co and others (No 2) CA 15-Mar-2000
Possible claims against a foreign company for misfeasance, or wrongful or fraudulent trading might be sufficient to justify proceedings here to wind up a foreign registered company. A second requirement is that some person within this jurisdiction . .
Cited – PLG Research Ltd and Another v Ardon International Ltd and Others ChD 25-Nov-1994
A patent infingement claim was met by the assertion that the material covered had been disclosed before the patent had been obtained. The court was asked as to the test of whether the information in a claim had been disclosed. Aldous J said: ‘Mr. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Latvian Shipping Company and Others v Stocznia Gdanska Sa CA 21-Jun-2002
A payment condition was just that and that a failure to pay entitled the seller to terminate at common law. Rix LJ said: ‘It is established law that, where one party to a contract has repudiated it, the other may validly accept that repudiation by . .
See Also – Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc; In re Latrefeers Inc; Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co and others (No 2) CA 15-Mar-2000
Possible claims against a foreign company for misfeasance, or wrongful or fraudulent trading might be sufficient to justify proceedings here to wind up a foreign registered company. A second requirement is that some person within this jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insolvency

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89570

Stacey v Player and Another: ChD 23 Feb 2001

A party was legally aided in proceedings. A third party offered to pay his costs in interlocutory proceedings. He was successful, and the losing party appealed an order to pay his costs. He succeeded. Whilst he was legally aided, his solicitors could only receive payment from the Legal Services Commission, and the fact that someone else might have paid did not allow an order against the third party. Such an order would leave the solicitors receiving payment other than from the LSC.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 23-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 64

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89479

Regina v Dudley Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Power City Stores Limited and Another: CA 1990

The defendant sought to recover the cost of employing leading counsel to defend him in the magistrates court after succeeding. The magistrates had disallowed the costs of leading counsel.
Held: The fact that the defendant could have obtained the same services at a much lower price than that average elsewhere is irrelevant. Pill LJ described the first test to be applied by the costs clerk on the taxation of costs in the magistrates court: ‘In order to fulfil the requirements of stage one he has to ask himself, first of all, whether the expenses are ones which are properly incurred by the defendant.’
Woolf LJ said that in seeking to apply the statute and the Regulations the clerk to the justices had asked himself the wrong question. He asked himself if a junior counsel or a senior solicitor could reasonably have conducted the case on behalf of the applicants, and answered that question in the affirmative. What he should have asked himself was ‘whether the applicant acted reasonably in employing leading counsel’. If the answer to that question was in the affirmative then the expenses were properly incurred for the purposes of section 16.
He continued: ‘Having regard to the nature of the case, which I have already described, it is quite impossible for it to be said that the defendants were acting improperly in instructing leading counsel.’ and ‘I would content myself by making an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the justices’ clerk, being confident that when the justices’ clerk reconsiders the matter, as he is required to do, and reassesses what are the proper expenses to be paid, he will approach the matter in the way indicated in the judgment which I have just given. In other words he will come to the conclusion in this case, which is the only conclusion which I would regard as being proper, that it was reasonable to engage leading counsel and merely confine himself to considering what fees are properly recoverable in respect of the instruction of leading counsel.’

Judges:

Pill LJ, Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1990] JP 654

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 16(6) 16(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Law Society of England and Wales, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 15-Jun-2010
Costs restriction not made under Act
The respondent had introduced rules which restricted the levels of costs which might be awarded from central funds to a successful defendant in a criminal trial who had take private representation. The amendment was made under powers in the 1985 . .
Cited – Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust v Acres QBD 22-Mar-2013
The defendant challenged the use by the claimant of solicitors from Central London in her claim for personal injury. She was a radiographer, and her work involved exposure to dangerous materials, though in this case it arose from use of machinery . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Magistrates

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.416820

Spath Holme Ltd v Chairman of the Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee (No2); Curtis v Similar: QBD 2 Jan 1998

A Bill of costs could be presented even though counsel’s fee had not yet been agreed; an extension of time was properly granted.

Citations:

Times 02-Jan-1998

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 62

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Spath Holme Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee CA 9-Aug-1995
The rent assessment committee had rejected market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the subject premises, because, inter alia, they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity, and thus found that the landlord had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.89445

University of Nottingham v Eyett and Another (No 2): ChD 3 Dec 1998

The Pensions’ Ombudsman having had a decision overturned on appeal and having entered appearance at the appeal was liable in costs only to the extent that his intervention had increased the costs.

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 594

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Wrongly decided – Moore’s (Wallisdown) Ltd v Pensions Ombudsman and Another; Royal and Sun Alliance Life and Pensions Ltd v Same ChD 21-Dec-2001
The applicants had successfully appealed against decisions of the Pensions Ombudsman. They sought their costs. The Ombudsman argued that the costs should be limited to the proportion by which they had in fact contributed to the need for an appeal. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.90089

Regina v Lands Tribunal, Ex Parte Jafton Properties Ltd: COL 31 Jul 2000

After a tribunal application, the applicant submitted his costs for taxation. After the hearing there was further correspondence about the decision, resulting in the applicant formally objecting to the taxation. He suggested that the correspondence after the award meant that taxation had not been concluded. It was held that he was out of time. The taxation award had all the elements necessary to make it final, and the President’s refusal of extension of time was not irrational or unreasonable. The reasons were succinct, but correct.

Judges:

Langley J

Citations:

Gazette 31-Aug-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 384

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 (1996 No 1022) 52

Costs, Administrative, Land

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87117

Regina v Liverpool Magistrates Court, Ex parte Abiaka: QBD 5 Mar 1999

After a bench dismissed a matter, a later bench awarded the defendant his costs. He applied for payment but was refused on basis that it was not the same bench.
Held: It need not be the same bench to dismiss the charge and to order costs. Once justices have made a defendant’s costs order, it is not for the clerk to ignore it. If he believed it wrong in law, he should raise it again with the bench or a reconstituted bench to alter the decision or refer it to a higher court.

Citations:

Times 06-May-1999, Gazette 08-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 205

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(1)

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85371

Regina v Common Professional Examination Board, Ex Parte Mealing-Mcclead: CA 19 Apr 2000

A party was required to pay money into court before pursuing an appeal. She borrowed money for this purpose but on the express condition that it should be used for this purpose only and was not to become part of her general assets. The money was paid into court, but the appeal was compromised in her favour. The judge ordered payment out to her opponent, to satisfy earlier unsatisfied costs orders. Her request for leave to appeal succeeded. The trust was as between her and the bank, and no need of others being notified arose. As trustee for the bank, she had a duty to act to recover it, and so had locus standi.

Citations:

Times 02-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 138

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Common Professional Examination Board ex parte Sally Mealing-Mcleod Admn 4-Nov-1997
The claimant challenged decisions taken as to the extension of time to allow her to pass the Common Professional Examination to become a member of the Bar. An application had some time before made for an oder under the 1981 Act. There was no taint . .
See Also – Regina v ex parte Mealing-Mcleod CA 18-Feb-1999
Formal order acknowledging settlement in favour of the applicant. . .
See Also – Regina v Common Professional Examination Board (ex parte Sally Mealing Mcleod) Admn 19-Apr-1999
. .
See Also – Regina v Common Professional Examination Board ex parte Mealing-Mcleod CA 21-Apr-1999
. .
Appeal from – Mcleod v Common Professional Examination Board SCCO 13-Mar-2000
. .
Cited – Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd; etc HL 31-Oct-1968
R Ltd were in serious financial difficulties. The company’s overdraft with the appellant bank was almost twice its permitted limit. The company sought a loan of 1 million pounds from a financier, who was willing to lend the company that sum provided . .
Cited – Johnson v Valks CA 23-Nov-1999
A person requiring leave to issue proceedings as a vexatious litigant, had also to obtain leave again before entering an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The entering of an appeal is either the institution of new proceedings, or an application . .
Cited – Brereton v Edwards 1888
Money in the control of the Court may be the subject of execution with the leave of the Court. The Judgments Acts did not apply to money held in Court. Lord Esher MR said: ‘section 14 does not apply to money . . it applies only to Government stock, . .
Cited – In re Prior CA 1921
The court considered its equitable powers over funds it held as security. The court ordered equitable execution. . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd; etc HL 31-Oct-1968
R Ltd were in serious financial difficulties. The company’s overdraft with the appellant bank was almost twice its permitted limit. The company sought a loan of 1 million pounds from a financier, who was willing to lend the company that sum provided . .
Cited – London County Council v Monks 1958
Danckwerts J considered the powers of the court over money paid in as security: ‘The real basis of those cases seems . . to be that where the court has the fund under its own control, as in the case of a fund standing to the credit to some account . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kris Motor Spares Ltd v Fox Williams Llp QBD 12-May-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the After the Event Insurance (ATE) bought by its solicitors late in the day in their claim, before then withdrawing the conditional fee agreement. The premium was over andpound;90,000.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions, Banking

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85198

Hamilton v Al-Fayed and Others (No 3): QBD 13 Jul 2001

Where a person funded another’s court action as an act of charity, it should be exceptional to order that third party to contribute to the costs of the successful opponent. Nevertheless there could be no absolute rule against such orders. There is a clear distinction between those who act in this way as pure funders, and those who funded litigation from some contractual obligation. Another relevant consideration was whether the funder had information to suggest that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success, or whether he acted as some quixotic philanthropist.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Morland

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2001, [2001] EWHC QB 389

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 4(1)

Costs, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81197

Lionel Goldstein v Ron Conley (2): CA 21 Jun 2001

A case went from the leasehold valuation tribunal, where there was no jurisdiction to award costs, to the Lands Appeal Tribunal where the Tribunal awarded costs against the applicant, and again to the High Court where the landlord sought to enforce the costs award. The tenant argued that the LAT had no power to award costs on an appeal from the LVT. It was held that the proceedings at the LAT were separate proceedings for which a full power to award costs existed, and that the High Court had full power to enforce the costs order, through its inherent powers, just as it had power to enforce a judgment of a foreign court.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 637

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80903

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 appropriate to hold back such information, and a party who did so risked losing his costs even if the payment in would otherwise meet the criteria. The Claimant recovered less damages than the amount of the payment into Court, but the Defendants were ordered to pay the whole of the Claimant’s costs, including those incurred after the date of the payment in.
Held: ‘the judge reaching his decision about costs is required to take into account all relevant aspects of the litigation.’ The order was justified in the circumstances of that case, in particular because of the late introduction of evidence by the Defendants which had the effect of reducing the amount of the judgment below that of the payment in. ‘Indeed, [the judge’s] judgment has served to underline [not ‘undermine’] the importance, rightly and increasingly, to be attached to civil litigation being conducted openly between the parties with the real issues between them efficiently and quickly identified and investigated without, as it now seems to me, any unfairness to these defendants in this case.’ (Woolf MR) ‘I also draw attention to the fact that the rules refer to the power of the court to make other orders and make it clear that the normal cost consequences of failing to beat the sum paid in does not apply when it is unjust that it should do so. If a party has not enabled another party to properly assess whether or not to make an offer, or whether or not to accept an offer which is made, because of non-disclosure to the other party of material matters, or if a party comes to a decision which is different from that which would have been reached if there had been proper disclosure, that is a material matter for the court to take into account in considering what orders it should make.’ Judge LJ: ‘Civil litigation is now developing into a system designed to enable the parties involved to know where they stand in reality at the earliest possible stage, and at the lowest practicable cost, so that they …. may make informed decisions about their prospects and the sensible conduct of their cases. Among other factors the judge exercising his discretion about costs should consider is whether one side or the other has, or has not, conducted litigation with those principles in mind.’

Judges:

Judge LJ, Woolf MR

Citations:

Times 05-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 All ER 802, [1999] EWCA Civ 3030

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others ChD 23-Jan-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80630

Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellshaft Mbh v Koshy and Others: CA 20 Feb 2001

The effect of revocation of a party’s emergency civil legal aid certificate was that he was to be deemed never to have been an assisted person. Accordingly where two costs orders had been made in interlocutory proceedings, and the defendant had been protected from an order for costs because of the legal aid certificate, it was open to a judge to revisit those costs orders after revocation and to consider substituting orders which could not have been made when he was legally aided. The provisions in this case survived some of the repeals under the new legislation.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1228

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1988, Access to Justice Act 1999, Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Newgate Stud Company, Newgate Stud Farm Llc v Penfold, Penfold Bloodstock Limited ChD 21-Dec-2004
The claimants sought damages from the defendant. He had been employed to manage their horse-racing activities, and it was alleged that he had made secret profits. The defendant denied any dishonesty, saying all matters were known to the deceased . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79885

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 3): ChD 8 Jul 1999

The Civil Procedure Rules have not changed the common law rules which say that an interlocutory order for costs could not be varied by another judge sitting at first instance, except only in exceptional circumstances where it appeared for example that fraud might be involved. To do so would be for the court to act as an appellate capacity on a matter it had decided itself: ‘when the court makes an order, only in the most exceptional circumstances such as those involving fraud or the slip rule, could the court revisit the order even where it is for costs. The court cannot act as an appellate court in respect of its own orders. It is not even as if the circumstances in which I am asked to revisit the order were not contemplated at the time when the order for costs was made.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Gazette 11-Aug-1999, Times 28-Sep-1999, [1999] EWHC 834 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2) ChD 24-Mar-1999
The claimant intended to seek recovery of a very substantial sum from the defendant. On learning of the defendant’s intention to sell its assets, it sought an order freezing them.
Held: The court has the discretion to order a freezing of a . .
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Limited Admn 26-Jun-1998
The court heard an appeal by the Commissioners from the VAT Duties Tribunal that ‘Spreadable butter’ and ‘Ammix butter’ from New Zealand made and imported by the respondent are ‘manufactured directly from milk or cream’, and are not ‘recombined . .

Cited by:

See also – Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No.4) ChD 18-Oct-1999
. .
See Also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd) CA 17-Aug-2000
When an appeal is lodged in a VAT dispute, the discretion as to whether to require the appellant to lodge security for costs in the appeal, was a decision exclusively to be decided by the tribunal itself. A decision as to such security could not be . .
Cited – CS v ACS and Another FD 16-Apr-2015
Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires
W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79364

Burrows v Vauxhall Motors Ltd; Mongiardi v IBBC Vehicles Ltd: CA 19 Nov 1997

After acceptance of money paid into court in proceedings issued unnecessarily quickly, the taxing officer alone has the power to disallow costs.
Powers of the County Court to deal with costs unnecessarily incurred as the result of the premature issue of proceedings in personal injury actions where liability was not in issue.

Judges:

Lord Woolf

Citations:

Gazette 10-Dec-1997, Times 17-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2756

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 Order 11 r 3(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78763

Bunzl v Martin Bunzl International Ltd and Others: ChD 3 Aug 2000

Security for costs had been ordered against a Swiss resident claimant. Although Switzerland is not in the EU or in the EEA and therefore rules against discrimination against nationals of member states did not apply, Switzerland was still a signatory to the Brussels and Lugano Conventions for enforcement of judgments. The discretion to require security for costs was slightly wider a regards a Swiss national, but the court should still general follow the rule in Fitzgerald. Orders for security for costs against nationals of other EU member states were discriminatory.

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2000, Gazette 03-Aug-2000

European, Costs, International

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78741

Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth: QBD 10 May 2000

The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The discretion given to magistrates to award such costs as it feels are just and reasonable does not mean that costs should always and normally follow the event. An authority with a duty to make decisions which suffered a successful challenge to that decision, but where the fault in the decision fell short of being unreasonable, dishonest, or improper, should not normally be ordered to pay the costs. The financial effect on the parties should be assessed, but such challenges are part of the expense of running a business. Section 64 was concerned with both liability for costs and their amount. The only statutory restriction on the power of the magistrates was that they could not make an order for costs against a successful party.
Bingham CJ said: ‘The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith.’
Later he continued ‘It seems to me that the justices in this case misdirected themselves, first, in relying on a principle that costs should follow the event, that misdirection being compounded by their view that the reference in section 64 to the order being just and reasonable applied to quantum only. On the other hand, in my judgment the submissions made by Mr Blair-Gould on behalf of the local authority go too far the other way since to give effect to the principle for which he contends would deprive the justices of any discretion to view the case in the round which is in my judgment what section 64 intends.
I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised is three propositions:
1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates’ court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them.
2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection.
3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour; and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged.’

Judges:

Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000, (2000) COD 338, (2000) 164 JP 485

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1), Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 62(1)(b)

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, ex parte Chief Constable Dyfed Powys Police QBD 9-Nov-1998
The Chief Constable, on good grounds, objected to the transfer of a justices’ on-licence to a Mrs W. Mrs W appealed and the Chief Constable, having objected to the transfer, became a respondent. On the appeal Mrs W contended that, since the conduct . .
Cited – Regina v Totnes Licensing Justices, ex parte Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall QBD 28-May-1990
The court considered the award of costs in a licensing case. Roch J said: ‘There can be no doubt that in civil proceedings between litigants, be it in the High Court or county court, the principle is that costs follow the event. The winning party . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Derbyshire v Goodman and Newton Admn 2-Apr-1998
Firearms licences were granted to the two respondents, but then revoked by the Chief Constable. They appealed to the Crown Court and their appeal was allowed. The judge, however, ordered the Chief Constable to pay the costs of the two respondents, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society Admn 30-Mar-2006
The solicitor appealed being struck off. He had given a character reference in circumstances where he did not have justification for the assessment.
Held: ‘The appellant knew that Barclays Bank trusted him to provide a truthful reference. . .
Cited – Cambridge City Council v Alex Nestling Ltd QBD 17-May-2006
The council appealed an award of costs against it. The respondent had appealed against a refusal by the council to vary a premises licence for a public house with partial success, and the magistrates had awarded the respondent half its costs.
Cited – Mastercard UK Members Forum Ltd Mastercard International Inc CAT 28-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Local Government, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78542

Lewis v Averay (No 2): CA 1973

The defendant had been unable to obtain legal aid, and resorted to the Automobile Association which indemnified him for his costs of his successful appeal. The respondent was legally aided on the appeal and the appellant sought an order for his costs against the Law Society. The Law Society could only be liable in respect of costs which had been ‘incurred’ by the unassisted litigant. The Law Society argued that the costs had been incurred by the AA and not by the litigant.
Held: Despite it being stated by the AA’s solicitors that Mr Averay had been told that he would be indemnified in all respects by the AA so that no part of the costs of the appeal had or would have fallen on him, he was the party to the appeal, the person responsible for costs, and, if the appeal had failed, the person who would have been ordered to pay costs, and that if those costs had not been paid his goods would have been liable to execution rather than those of the AA.
Lord Denning MR found that the legal fees were incurred by Averay, said: ‘[Mr Hames] suggests that in this case the costs were not incurred by Mr Averay, but were incurred by the Automobile Association; because the Automobile Association undertook the appeal and instructed their solicitors and paid them. I cannot accept this suggestion. It is clear that Mr Averay was in law the party to the appeal. He was the person responsible for the costs. If the appeal had failed, he would be the person ordered to pay the costs. If the costs had not been paid, execution would be levied against him and not against the Automobile Association. The truth is that the costs were incurred by Mr Averay, but the Automobile Association indemnify him against the costs.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 510

Citing:

See Also – Lewis v Averay CA 22-Jul-1971
A private seller had parted with his car in return for a worthless cheque to a rogue who persuaded him that he was the well-known actor who played Robin Hood on television, and who sold it on to the defendant.
Held: ‘When two parties have come . .

Cited by:

Cited – Radford and Another v Frade and Others QBD 8-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to the terms on which solicitors and Counsel were retained to act for the defendants. The appeals did not raise any issues concerning costs practice, and were by way of review of the Costs Judge’s rulings, and not by way of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566838

Borneman v Wilson: CA 1884

The Wilsons, father and son, had acted as commercial agents of one Borneman. He began an action against them in the Chancery Division for an account of their dealings with his goods and obtained interlocutory relief on motion including an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. The Wilsons served a notice of appeal, but shortly afterwards a bankruptcy order was made against them. On 7 October 1884, a trustee in bankruptcy was appointed. On 18 October, the trustee was substituted as a defendant, apparently ex parte on the application of Borneman. On 31 October, he gave notice abandoning the appeal. He then entered an appearance in the substantive proceedings and called for a statement of claim. Borneman applied for an order against the trustee requiring him to pay the costs of the appeal which he had incurred before receipt of the notice of abandonment.
Held: The order was made. notwithstanding the trustee’s prompt and express abandonment of the appeal, by appearing and calling for a statement of claim in the Chancery proceedings he had adopted the action, and that meant the entire action including the appeal.
Bowen LJ said that the trustee: ‘cannot adopt part of the action and leave out the rest.’

Judges:

Bowen and Fry LJJ

Citations:

(1884) 28 Ch D 53

Cited by:

Adopted – School Board for London v Wall Brothers CA 1891
. .
Cited – Trustee of Property of Vickery (a Bankrupt) v Modern Security Systems Limited CA 15-Oct-1997
A trustee in bankruptcy will be treated as the party if he has in fact adopted the proceedings by conducting the litigation, even if there has been no formal substitution . .
Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566481

School Board for London v Wall Brothers: CA 1891

Judges:

Lord Esher MR and Lopes and Kay LJJ

Citations:

(1891) 8 Morr 202

Citing:

Adopted – Borneman v Wilson CA 1884
The Wilsons, father and son, had acted as commercial agents of one Borneman. He began an action against them in the Chancery Division for an account of their dealings with his goods and obtained interlocutory relief on motion including an injunction . .

Cited by:

Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insolvency

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566482

In re Bluck, Ex parte Bluck: 1887

The discretionary character of a costs order meant that it was not even a contingent liability until the order had actually been made

Citations:

(1887) 57 LT 419

Cited by:

Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.537712

In re Pitchford: 11 Jan 1924

Citations:

[1924] 2 Ch 260

Cited by:

Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Cited – General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza EAT 10-Oct-2014
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The Employment Tribunal, by a majority, found that the Respondent was in breach of a duty to make . .
Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.537714

In re A Debtor (No 68 of 1911): 1911

Citations:

[1911] 2 KB 652

Cited by:

Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.537713

Case XXII 10 Jac 10 Co 115 B, 117 B, Pitfold’s Case Damages, Count: 1220

In trespass the plaintiff declares to 40l damages ; upon not guilty pleaded by the defendant, a verdict gives 49l damages with costs of suit to the plaintiff ; the plaintiff releases 9l. Of the damages, and has judgment for the 40l. damages, with the costs. Damages are for the wrong done before the writ purchased. Costs are pro expensis litis.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 57, (1220-1623) Jenk 288, (1220) 145 ER 208 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.460969

The Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner: CA 23 Nov 2010

A losing candidate at a local election alleged corrupt and illegal practices relating to the entry of non-existent people on the electoral roll and using postal votes. The Election Commissioner found this proved and the election void, and awarded costs against him. He was unable to meet the sum awarded and became bankrupt. The candidate who had lost sought payment from the defrauding candidate’s party (against whom no offence had been found). The Party now disputed the jurisdiction of and its use by the Commissioner to join them. Party funds had insured the fund for the defence in Court. It was argued that the Commissioner was functus officio, and had no jurisdiction to take matters further.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Smith, Leveson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1332, [2011] PTSR 416

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Cripps; Ex parte Muldoon CA 1984
The Elections Commissioner had sought, some time after his order on a petition, to clarify the order from costs.
Held: The Commissioner, and in turn Keith J, had been wrong to consider themselves not bound by Muldoon. What Mr Cripps (the . .
Cited – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
Appeal from – The Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner and Others Admn 19-Feb-2010
A local election result had been set aside for fraud in the winning Conservative candidate. The Commissioner made an order for costs against his party which was now challenged for lack of jurisdiction the Commissioner being functus officio, and the . .
Cited – Ullah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy CA 12-Dec-2002
The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Taunton Election Petition, In re; Marshall v James CCP 29-May-1874
A petition against the return of the member for Taunton was filed in November 1873. The trial commenced on the 12th of January, 1874, and on the morning of the 26th, at about 10.30, the judge gave judgment declaring the respondent to have been duly . .
Cited – Regina v Cripps; Ex parte Muldoon QBD 1983
The election commissioner, Mr Anthony Cripps QC, had purported to explain many months later what he had meant in an order for costs which he had made when handing down his judgment on an election petition. It was argued that he had had the power to . .
Cited – Vakauta v Kelly 1989
(High Court of Australia) The majority held that the first instance judge fell on the wrong side of ‘an ill-defined line beyond which the expression by a trial judge of preconceived views about the reliability of particular medical witnesses could . .
Cited – Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.426466

Weldon v Vesey: 1682

Whether a sheriff, or, andc. shall have 12d. in the pound for the first 1001. and 6d. for the rest upon an execution.

Citations:

[1682] EngR 426, (1682) Pop 173, (1682) 79 ER 1269

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.401523

Attwood v Small: 12 Dec 1827

Where a great number of exceptions were taken to an answer, and shortly before the argument the defendant submitted to answer them, in consequence of which, it was urged, that the answer was clearly evasive, and that the ordinary costs were greatly inadequate; yet the Court refused to give extra costs but reserved the consideration of them, until the hearing of the cause.

Citations:

[1827] EngR 853, (1827) 2 Y and J 72, (1827) 148 ER 837 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Attwood v Small And Others 9-Aug-1827
An agreement, contained by itself less than 1080 words, but there was in it a stipulation that a clause in a previous agreement, which was duly stamped, should be taken as part of the new agreement.
Held: That although with the clause referred . .
See Also – Attwood v Small And Others 8-Nov-1827
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Small And Others v Attwood And Others 3-May-1828
Amendment of pleadings . .
See Also – Small And Others v Attwood And Others 1-Nov-1832
Where a contract is entered into for the purchase of an estate by certain persons in their own names, but in fact on their own account, and also as agents for other parties, a bill to rescind the contract may be filed in the names of the agents and . .
See Also – Attwood v Small and Others HL 1-Mar-1838
The plaintiffs had bought land including iron mines from the defendants. They sought and were given explicit re-assurances about the mine’s capacity, but these proved false after the plaintiffs had begun to work the mine themselves.
Held: . .
See Also – Attwood v Small etc 22-Mar-1838
. .
See Also – Attwood v Small 1840
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.324607

Lewis v Samuel: 17 Apr 1846

Plaintiff, an attorney, undertook a prosecution for perjury on defendant’s behalf, and agreed not to charge him full costs, except money out of pocket. He disbursed 105 pounds towards carrying on the proceedings, but, by negligence, preferred a defective indictment, and, in consequence, the prosecution failed. Held that he could not recover against defendant for the disbursements. Defendant, in the course of the proceedings, advanced plaintiff 100 1. for carrying them on ; and he applied it accordingly. Held, that, in an action by plaintiff for professional charges and disbursements, defendant could not set off’ the 100 pounds. as money received by plaintiff to his use.

Citations:

[1846] EngR 543, (1846) 8 QB 685, (1846) 115 ER 1031

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.302438

Dickens v Dickens: 9 Mar 1859

Wife’s Costs. – Wife’s Petition. – Taxed Costs during Suit – Practice – On taxation of wife’s costs in a petition for judicial separation pending suit, the registrar disallowed all costs incurred before actual proceedings taken against the husband, and various items charged for attendance on the wife’s father in connection with her case. On cause shewn against a rule nisi for a review of taxation :- The Court affirmed the registrar’s taxation as being in accordance with the practice of both the common law and ecclesiastical courts.

Citations:

[1859] EngR 391, (1859) 2 Sw and Tr 103, (1859) 164 ER 931

Links:

Commonlii

Costs, Family

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.287743

Dooly v The Great Northern Railway Company: 27 Jan 1860

By reason of stat. 11 Hen. 7, c. 12, and Reg. Gen. Hil. 1853, r. 121, where a plaintiff sues in forma pauperis, arid obtains a verdict arid the Judge’s certificate for costs, whatever be the amount recovered, nothing is to be allowed on taxation of costs in respect of fees to the plaintiffs counsel, or by way of remuneration for the services of the plaintiff’s attorney. In a case where the Court bad previously so held, the Court now refused an application by the plaintiff for a rule to enter a suggestion on the roll to deprive the plaintiff of costs; the object of the application being that error might be brought on the former decision, and the Court holding that error could riot be brought.

Citations:

[1860] EngR 393, (1860) 2 El and El 576, (1860) 121 ER 217

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.285232

Clark v Malpas: 13 Jan 1863

The cost of bridging up witnesses for cross-examination in Court allowed, in a taxation between party and party, although they had not been actually cross-examined. Shorthand writer’s notes of the Cross-examination of witnesses in Court allowed, but costs of his notes of the judgment disallowed, on a taxation between party arid party.

Citations:

[1863] EngR 107, (1862-1863) 31 Beav 554, (1863) 54 ER 1253

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Clark v Malpas 25-Apr-1862
The court found a contract to be an unconscionable bargain where a poor and illiterate man was induced to enter into a transaction of an unusual nature, without proper independent advice, and in great haste; and the resulting transaction has been, . .
See Also – Clark v Malpas 2-Jul-1862
A purchase from an illiterate poor man, who was ill at the time, set aside, the price being inadequate, the vendor having no professorial advice, and the transaction being completed in great haste and on terms unduly disadvantageous to him. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.282762

Anderson v Hyde and Others: CANI 2 May 1996

The defendant company was wound up after the receiver had been appointed and the liquidator declined to take over the defence to the action. The judge had refused an application for a third party costs order against the receivers.
Held: Had the defence been taken over by the liquidator the costs of the claimant would have ranked in priority to the claims of ordinary unsecured creditors, and it would not be just and equitable for a receiver to be able to defend the action without any liability for costs whatever the outcome. A receiver of a company taking over the defence of a case is liable in costs as a party, but is entitled to an indemnity.

Citations:

Times 02-May-1996, [1996] 2 BCLC 144

Cited by:

Cited – Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others CA 17-May-2007
The owner had agreed to sell a long lease of an apartment to the defendant. Part of the price was to be by way of set off of an existing debt, but ths was not set out in the contract. The claimant bought the land and the benfit of the contract from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Northern Ireland, Costs

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77787

Cambridge City Council v Alex Nestling Ltd: QBD 17 May 2006

The council appealed an award of costs against it. The respondent had appealed against a refusal by the council to vary a premises licence for a public house with partial success, and the magistrates had awarded the respondent half its costs.
Held: The appellant had not acted unlawfully, but had acted conscientously and properly. The magistrates had merely reached a different conclusion. The otherwise normal rule that costs follow the event did not apply in such cases.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Toulson J

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2006

Statutes:

Licensing Act 2003 181

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth QBD 10-May-2000
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244195

Okotcha v Voest Alpine Intertrading GmbH: CA 1993

When deciding whether to order security for costs, the possibility or probability that the plaintiff company will be deterred from pursuing its claim is not the sole deciding factor.

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1993] BCLC 474

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions CA 1995
The court set out the principles to be applied by the court upon an application for security for costs.
1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light of all the relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225882

Rediffusion v Singer Link: CA 1993

In Patent infringement proceedings it may be proper for a court to assess costs on an issue by issue basis because of the ‘large number of issues and the very extensive costs that can be incurred.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ

Citations:

[1993] FSR 369

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.222557

Regina v Shrewsbury Coroner’s Court ex parte British Parachute Association: QBD 21 Sep 1987

Coroners are forbidden by the rules to make recommendations to a jury as to their verdict. Despite the fact that the coroner was represented at the appeal, the court refused to make any order for costs against the coroner. This was not a case where they could express strong disapproval of the coroner, there being no special circumstances .

Judges:

Lloyd LJ and Mann J

Citations:

(1987) 152 JPR 123, Times 21-Sep-1987

Statutes:

Coroners Rules 1984 (1984 No 552) 36(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Coroners, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.194541

UCB Bank Plc v Dundas and Wilson: SCS 1990

It would not be competent for the Court of Session to restrict the pursuers’ entitlement to a fraction or percentage of the sums brought out as being payable in terms of the accounts, after they had been taxed by the Auditor.

Citations:

1990 1 SLT 90

Cited by:

Cited – Free and others v British Steel Plc and Another SCS 18-Jul-2003
(Outer House) The pursuer had sought damages from the defender, but failed to submit the claim for expenses. The defenders said they were prejudiced by the delay.
Held: ‘Comparing the prejudice the pursuers would suffer, were the motion to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184713

Chamberlain v Boodle and King: 1982

A second solicitor’s bill was not susceptible to taxation because it related to what was in effect one continuous matter for which a bill had already been taxed.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1982] 3 All ER 188

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Aaron v Okoye CA 15-Jan-1998
The plaintiff solicitor had acted for the respondent barrister in legal proceedings. The respondent was unhappy with work done on her behalf by counsel instructed by the plaintiff, and declined to pay. The solicitor taxed his bill excluding . .
Cited – Aaron v Okoye CA 19-Mar-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183327

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 interest whatever, and where the assistance he renders to one or the other party is without justification or excuse.’

Judges:

Fletcher-Moulton LJ

Citations:

[1908] 1 KB 1006

Cited by:

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 – Giles v Thompson, Devlin v Baslington (Conjoined Appeals) HL 1-Jun-1993
Car hire companies who pursued actions in motorists’ names to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle after an accident, from negligent drivers, were not acting in a champertous and unlawful manner. Lord Mustill said: ‘there exists in . .
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, Litigation Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.181095

B Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care: EAT 9 Mar 2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/125/97

Citing:

Cited – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
See Also – Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care EAT 26-Jun-1998
. .
See Also – Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care CA 17-Feb-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.171769

Thomas v Bunn: HL 1991

From its enactment it was accepted that s 17 applied to orders for costs to be taxed – even though before taxation was completed there was no sum for which execution could be levied – and did so from the date of the order (the incipitur rule), not the date of the certificate of taxation (the allocatur rule), although the latter rule had for a while prevailed in Chancery.
Lord Ackner said: ‘If the words used in this section are considered in isolation, the problem would not appear to be a difficult one. It is accepted there cannot be a judgment debt until there is a judgment for a quantified sum, i.e. a final as contrasted with an interlocutory judgment. Such a final judgment is to carry interest from the time of entering up ‘the judgment’, i.e. the judgment which creates the judgment debt, i.e. the final judgment. This is made doubly clear by the provision that the interest shall run ‘until the same shall be satisfied’. Until there is a quantified sum which the judgment debtor is obliged by the terms of the judgment to pay, there is no judgment which he is able to satisfy. The final provision in the section that ‘such interest may be levied under a writ of execution on such judgment’ must refer to the judgment which has created the judgment debt. That is the final judgment.’ and . .
‘The wording of section 17 clearly envisages a single judgment which constitutes the ‘judgment debt’. This ‘judgment debt’ can only arise where the judgment itself quantifies the sum which the judgment debtor owes to his judgment creditor. The language of the section does not envisage an interlocutory judgment, but only a final judgment.’

Judges:

Lord Ackner

Citations:

[1991] 1 AC 362, [1991] 2 WLR 27, [1991] 1 All ER 193

Statutes:

Judgments Act 1838 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hunt v R M Douglas (Roofing) Ltd HL 1990
The plaintiff had an order ‘That the Defendants do pay to the Plaintiff his costs of this action . . to be taxed . . failing agreement’ and the House was asked as to the time from when he was entitled to interest.
Held: A litigant who has been . .

Cited by:

Cited – Involnert Management Inc v Aprilgrange Limited and Others ComC 8-Oct-2015
Date from which interest was to run on principal damages award. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.553255

A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Payment of Legal Fees): FD 2001

The court made an order to provide that the monies paid by way of maintenance pending suit in respect of any matter can be brought into account by the judge making the order in the ancillary relief proceedings.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 605

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wyatt v Vince SC 11-Mar-2015
Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds
The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied . .
Cited – Currey v Currey CA 18-Oct-2006
Where one party in an ancillary relief claim was not entitled to legal aid, but showed a need for legal representation which he or she could not afford, the court could make an order requiring the other party to make a costs allowance. The nature of . .
Cited – Vince v Wyatt CA 8-May-2013
The parties had divorced some twenty years previously, but apparently without ancillary relief orders, the parties at the time being relatively poor. H was now wealthy and W applied for lump sum provision. H replied that there was no no evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.544254

In re Wenborn and Co: 1905

Buckley J held: ‘When the voluntary liquidator, or the liquidator in a compulsory winding up, comes to the Court for leave to bring or defend an action by or against the company, and obtains this leave, the judge in effect pledges the assets of the company for the costs of the action which he authorizes the liquidator to bring or adopt or defend.’ and ‘When there is a winding-up of a company – whether the liquidation be compulsory or voluntary – all claims of creditors ought prima facie to be dealt with in the winding-up in accordance with the rules applicable to the distribution of the assets, and that costs ought also to be dealt with in like manner; but that if an action is pending to which the company is a party, then, if the company which is in liquidation acting by its liquidator determines to prosecute or defend the proceedings for the estate, the estate must be treated as the party litigant, and must in case of failure pay the costs in full. In other words, the other creditors, for whose benefit the action is defended, must in such case bear the costs.’

Judges:

Buckley J

Citations:

[1905] 1 Ch 413

Cited by:

Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insolvency

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.537947

Re Cohen and Cohen: CA 1905

Mrs Cotton sued Mr Edwardes for breach of contract; and he claimed against her as to the ownership of a song. Mrs Cotton authorised her solicitors to incur liabilities for unusual expenses, including the employment of leading and junior counsel to settle the statement of claim and to advise on evidence. Before giving instructions for taking these steps she had been advised by the solicitors that the extra costs would have to be paid by herself; and would not be allowed against her opponent even if she were successful in the litigation. Mr Edwardes and Mrs Cotton subsequently settled the actions on terms that Mr Edwardes paid Mrs Cotton’s costs ‘as between solicitor and client relating to the matters in dispute in the said two actions, such costs to be agreed or taxed.’ The Master said that he had taxed the bill item by item and had decided that unusual charges and luxuries were to be borne by the client (Mrs Cotton) rather than by Mr Edwardes. He therefore disallowed the special fees paid to leading counsel. She appealed.
Held: The appeal failed.
Vaughan Williams LJ said that the agreement should be construed as limited to costs that were reasonable proper and necessary in the actions and that by requiring assessment of the bill Mr Edwardes had not enlarged his liability under the agreement.
Romer LJ said: ‘I think he has contracted to pay solicitor and client costs to be taxed in the ordinary way without regard to any special arrangement which may have extended the client’s ordinary liability . . To hold otherwise would be to prevent a third party from obtaining the benefit of s. 38. Either he would have to forego taxation, or if he obtained it would find himself liable to pay sums which could not be anticipated by him, and for which as third party he was not liable.’ Applying this principle, he held that Mr Edwardes was not liable to pay the costs of instructing leading counsel. As he put it: ‘it is clear that the items disallowed by the taxing master were items for which Mr Edwardes was not liable.’

Judges:

Vaughan Williams, Stirling, Romer LLJ

Citations:

[1905] 2 Ch 137

Cited by:

Cited – Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump Llp ChD 17-Nov-2010
The company borrowed money from a bank, who instructed the defendants to act in the loan. On recovering the loan, the borrowers challenged the amounts charged by the solicitors. The court was asked what were the powers for a third party paying a . .
Cited – Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump Llp ChD 17-Nov-2010
The company borrowed money from a bank, who instructed the defendants to act in the loan. On recovering the loan, the borrowers challenged the amounts charged by the solicitors. The court was asked what were the powers for a third party paying a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.426442

In Re Longbotham and Sons: CA 1904

The borrower had agreed to pay the lender’s solicitors bill, but challenged it saying that it included elements for personal work.
Held: The personal items were excluded. Costs which are outside the scope of the third party’s liability ‘would not have to be taxed or considered’. In other words it is no part of the assessment that such costs are taxed or considered. Romer LJ said: ‘When a third party taxes a bill under s. 38 of the Act of 1843, it is clear, both from the wording of the section itself and the authorities, that the taxation must be on the footing of a taxation between the solicitor and the client. But the third party is not for all purposes in connection with the taxation to be treated as if he were himself the client. For instance, when the client has paid the bill, and might not be able to shew special circumstances sufficient to entitle him to have the bill taxed, it does not follow of necessity that the third party is thereby precluded from obtaining taxation.’
A third party asked to pay a solicitors bill is entitled to have extraneous matters excluded. Romer LJ said: ‘Again, the solicitor may have acted for the client in more than one completed matter, and the client may not be entitled as against the solicitor to obtain delivery of a bill and taxation, except on the footing of having all the matters included and taxed. But if the third party be only interested in and liable to pay the costs of one matter, it is clear in my opinion, as a matter of principle, that under s. 38 he can obtain taxation of the bill so far as concerns that one matter only, and on the footing of being liable to pay only the taxed costs of that matter. And that principle really decides this case, and shews that the appeal should fail. For in the present case the third party is a mortgagor, and he is only interested in the relations between the solicitor and his client so far as they concern the position of the client strictly in his character of mortgagee. The mortgagor, therefore, is entitled under s. 38 to have taxation of the solicitors’ bill limited to the items of costs incurred by the client strictly in his position of mortgagee.’
Romer LJ said: ‘It may well be that the client, as between himself and the solicitor, is liable for costs incurred in relation to the mortgaged property with which the mortgagor is not concerned, and for which the mortgagor is not liable. Those will be costs incurred by the mortgagee in his personal capacity so far as concerns the mortgagor, and not costs incurred by him in the capacity of mortgagee strictly and properly considered, and accordingly would not have to be taxed or considered by the taxing master in a taxation by the mortgagor as third party.’

Judges:

Romer LJ

Citations:

[1904] 2 Ch 152

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1843 38

Cited by:

Cited – Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump Llp ChD 17-Nov-2010
The company borrowed money from a bank, who instructed the defendants to act in the loan. On recovering the loan, the borrowers challenged the amounts charged by the solicitors. The court was asked what were the powers for a third party paying a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.426439

Balchin v South Western Magistrates’ Court: Admn 2008

The successful defendant had been refused the costs of paying his counsel.
Held: The assessor was wrong in asking himself whether the employment of counsel was necessary; that was the wrong test. The only issue was whether it was reasonable.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3037 (Admin)

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16

Cited by:

Cited – The Law Society of England and Wales, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 15-Jun-2010
Costs restriction not made under Act
The respondent had introduced rules which restricted the levels of costs which might be awarded from central funds to a successful defendant in a criminal trial who had take private representation. The amendment was made under powers in the 1985 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.416818

Harris v Hamlyn: 12 Jun 1849

Where the solicitor to the Suitors’ Fund has been appointed to act, and acts as guardian for infant defendants in a foreclosure suit, at the request of the Plaintiff, under the 28th Order of October 1842, the Court upon making a decee of foreclosure will direct the Plaintiff to pay the guardian’s costs, and to add them to his own, even where tbe security is inadequate.

Citations:

[1849] EngR 725 (A), (1849) 3 De G and Sm 470

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.299030

Money v Money: 28 Nov 1853

Arches Court of Canterbury -In a matrimonial suit, the husband retained one counsel only, and the wife’s proctor, conceiving she could not claim the privilege of two, also retained one only, but for the hearing was induced to retain a second The costs thereof being allowed upon taxation, the proctor for the husband objected to the Registrar’s report.
Held that the ordinary. practice of the Court was to have two counsel on each side; that a wife was primai facie therefore entitled thereto, arid that the special circumstances of the present case dld not afford sufficiient ground for exception.

Citations:

[1853] EngR 1040, (1853) 1 Sp Ecc and Ad 117, (1853) 164 ER 68

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Ecclesiastical, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.295026