Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs: SC 11 May 2016

The issue raised on this appeal concerns the extent to which the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to make an order for costs is fettered by the provisions of the Rules regulating the procedure of the Tribunal.
Held: With one exception, under rule 10(1), the FTT can only make two types of costs order. The first is a wasted costs order under sub-para (a), and the other is an order for costs where a party has behaved unreasonably under sub-para (b). The one exception is under sub-para (c), which envisages that there will be no such limitation on the FTT’s jurisdiction to award costs if two conditions are satisfied – namely (i) the proceedings are a ‘Complex case’ under Rule 23, and (ii) the taxpayer has not served a request (within the requisite 28-day period) that there should be no potential liability under rule 10(1)(c). Both the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal had approached the case on the basis that this wa a complex case, but that, a notice having been served, the FTTTx had no power to orders any save wasted costs or for unreasonable conduct. The interpretation suggested by the taxpayer would undermine the no costs shifting basis of the rules.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2016] UKSC 24, [2016] WLR(D) 254, [2016] 1 WLR 1939, [2016] 3 All ER 719, [2016] STC 1385, [2016] STI 1531, [2016] BTC 20, UKSC 2014/0114
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 2 5, Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 29(1) 29(2)

England and Wales
Citing:
At CAEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs CA 26-Feb-2014
The court was asked whether the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) had jurisdiction to make an order that the costs of preparing hearing bundles for a substantive appeal by the appellant taxpayer should be shared equally between the taxpayer and the . .
At FTTTxEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Jun-2011
FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special . .
At UTTCHM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp UTTC 22-Mar-2013
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying . .
CitedHMRC v Atlantic Electronics Ltd UTTC 6-Feb-2012
UTTC COSTS – Transitional appeal – Appeal by HMRC against direction under Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009, Sch 3, para 7 for 1986 applying 2009 Rules to the proceedings – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Taxes Management

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563292

Axon v Ministry of Defence: QBD 19 Apr 2016

Order for costs following principal judgment.

Nicol J
[2016] EWHC 883 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoAxon v Ministry of Defence QBD 11-Apr-2016
Action for misuse of private information and/or breach of confidence.
Held: Information relating to the events leading to the removal of a Royal Navy warship commander from that role fell outside the ambit of his private or personal life.
Costs

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562790

Peel v Beasley: SCCO 3 Dec 2007

His Honour Judge S P Grenfell,
Sitting With,
Regional Costs Judge, District Judge Spencer,,
And,
Lay Assessor, Mr Geoffrey Swain, Solicitor
[2007] EWHC 90094 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.269941

Archer v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 29 Feb 2016

Procedure -costs application- basic category case – APN – HMRC failure to issue closure notice -unreasonable actions in forcing bringing of proceedings-delay in issuing notice -Rule 10(1)(b) Tribunal Rules -held- HMRC not unreasonable in defending proceedings – behaviour prior to issue of proceedings not determinative.

[2016] UKFTT 141 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561847

Blades v Isaac and Another: ChD 21 Mar 2016

Claim by beneficiary under discretionary trust.
Held: A trustee’s wrongful failure to provide information does not necessarily justify an adverse costs order.

Matthews M
[2016] EWHC 601 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHeugh v Scard CA 1875
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘In certain cases of mere neglect or refusal to furnish accounts, when the neglect is very gross or the refusal wholly indefensible, I reserve to myself the right of making the executor or trustee pay the costs of . .
CitedIn Re Skinner ChD 1904
A beneficiary of a will trust brought an action for an account, having had little or no accounting from the executors and trustees (one a professional solicitor, entitled to charge) since the testator died more than two years before the action was . .

Cited by:
CitedRoyal National Lifeboat Institution and Others v Headley and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Beneficiaries’ right to information from estate
The claimant charities sought payment of interests under the will following the dropping of two life interests. They now requested various documents forming accounts of the estate.
Held: The charities were entitled to some but not to all of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561519

Evans and Others v The Serious Fraud Office: QBD 12 Feb 2015

The claimants had had criminal charges brought against them by the defendants. A court had ordered them discharged, but the defendant had recommenced proceedings and these second set of proceedings had also been dismissed by the court. They now applied for their costs.
Held: The SFO’s conduct had been described as improper: ‘This application was, on any view, outside the norm. In my view, the conduct of the SFO took it there; and, despite the very high hurdle, I am satisfied that that conduct is worthy of being marked by this court with costs on the indemnity basis.’

Hickinbottom J
[2015] EWHC 263 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedReid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .
CitedWates Construction Ltd v HGP Greentree Allchurch Evans Ltd TCC 10-Oct-2005
A unit constructed by the claimant had collapsed under a weight of rainwater. It had been constructed according to a design provided by the defendants. The claimants had discontinued the action on the morning of the trial, and the defendants now . .
Refusal of Voluntary indictmentSerious Fraud Office v Evans and Others QBD 14-Nov-2014
The court faced an application by the SFO for a voluntary bill of indictment. Similar charges against the defendants had been discharged. The allegations involved very substantial alleged frauds. . .
CitedRegina v Horsham Justices, ex parte Reeves (Note) QBD 1980
The police had decided simply to re-lay charges which had already been dismissed after an extensive depositions hearing. The charges were simplified but essentially the same.
Held: This was an abuse of process. A court is possessed of a . .
CitedRegina v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page HL 3-Dec-1992
The decisions of University Visitors are subject to judicial review in that they exercise a public function. English law no longer draws a distinction between jurisdictional errors of law and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
However, the . .

Cited by:
CitedMX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust and Others CA 17-Feb-2015
Application was made for approval of a compromise of a claim for damages for personal injury for the child. The court now considered whether an order should be made to protect the identity of the six year old claimant.
Held: An order should . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.542603

Beasley v Alexander: QBD 9 Oct 2012

The parties had disputed liability for personal injuries in a road traffic accident. The court had held the defendant liable, but held over the assessment of damages. The defendant sought to refer to the fact of his offer of settlement when assessing the costs of the liability trial.
Held: CPR r 36.13(2) did not permit a court to be told of a Part 36 offer and consequently go on to deal with the question of costs at the conclusion of the first part of a split trial: ‘Until it was known how the payment compared with the final judgment no decision as to costs could be made. It was important for the court to know that there had been a payment into court because it would then know that no order as to costs should be made at that stage. Equally it would be important for a court to know that no payment in had been made because then it could exercise its discretion as to the costs of the liability trial in that knowledge. I should proceed on the basis that when the present Rule 36.13 was formulated the Civil Procedure Rule Committee had the decision in HSS in mind.’
and ‘ as to the construction of the words in Rule 36.13(2) ‘until the case has been decided’ . . I am satisfied that the words have a clear meaning. It is clear that ‘the case’ is used in the sense of ‘the action’ or ‘the proceedings’. The reference to ‘the case’ cannot be construed as referring to part of a case.’

Sir Raymond Jack
[2012] EWHC 2715 (QB), [2012] WLR (D) 272
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 36.13(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedHSS Hire Services Group Plc v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd and Another CA 24-May-2005
The claimant licensee alleged that the license contract had been repudiated by the defendant licensor. The claimant succeeded at the trial of liability. The defendant had made a payment into court. The judge was told of the payment but not of the . .
CitedGarratt v Saxby CA 18-Feb-2004
There had been a Part 36 offer to settle the action. It was disclosed inadvertently to the judge.
Held: There had been no serious procedural irregularity, and fairness and justice did not require a rehearing before different judge. . .
CitedTed Baker Plc and Others v Axa Insurance Uk Plc and Others ComC 29-Jun-2012
The court had determined several preliminary issues in favour of the claimants, but issues as to liability remained. The court considered whether and on what basis it was proper now to make an order for costs.
Held: Eder J said: ‘As to the . .
LiabilityBeasley v Alexander QBD 27-Jul-2012
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.464786

Coward v Harraden: QBD 2 Dec 2011

Parties had fought each other in wide ranging litigation. The claimant found covert surveillance devices in his home, and discovered evidence that the defendant may have information as to who had placed them. Earlier orders had been made for the disclosure of some information. The party opposing the claimant in the ongoing litigation then applied for these proceedings to be anonymised, and the claimant for the so far private applications to be published. The parties agreed on a way forward and now sought a consent order restricting publication, and as to costs.
Held: The court discussed the status of interim orders made at private hearings. Under CPR interim applications may be heard in private where made without notice and where it would be unjust to the respondent to allow publicity where he has not had opportunity to respond. The claimant said that the arrangement had been agreed to only when it became clear that the costs of this incidental litigation had become disproportionate. Though the interveners had in effect been successful in that the orders had remained private, considerations of open justice had been sufficient to justify the claimant’s attempts to bring the issue back before the courts. The litigation had been substantial, and the amounts involved reflected that, but the correct order was to make no order as to costs.

Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 3092 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 44
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEntick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
CitedHodgson 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 . .
CitedHome Office v Lownds (Practice Note) CA 21-Mar-2002
The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate.
Held: In such . .
CitedBinyan Mohamed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 26-Feb-2010
The claimant had sought public disclosure of documents supplied to the defendant by US security services which might support his claim that he had been tortured by the US, and that the defendant knew of it. The draft judgment was to be handed down . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.449398

Amin and Another v Mullings and Another: QBD 17 Feb 2011

The parties disputed the uplift applicable where a road traffic personal injury claim was settled on the day before the full trial, and whether ‘ the learned Recorder erred in holding that the claim concluded at trial because the Claimant’s claim because settlement of the claim was reached on the day fixed for the trial. Accordingly he held that the Claimant was entitled to recover a 100% uplift in counsel’s and solicitor’s fees. If the Recorder erred in so holding, the Claimant sought to uphold the 100% increase in fees on the basis that the claim was concluded at trial because the quantum of the Defendant’s counterclaim was determined at a hearing and the claim and counterclaim together formed the claim which was concluded at trial.’
Held: The phrase ‘at trial’ is defined at CPR 45.15(6)(b), and the recorder was in error in thinking otherwise, and ‘The trigger for entitlement to a 100% uplift in fees is not a settlement on a particular date but a settlement or conclusion after a trial, defined as a hearing, has commenced. It would be straining the use of language to say that a trial has ‘commenced’ after the beginning of the day fixed for trial although the hearing has not yet started.’

Slade J
[2011] EWHC 278 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 45.15(6)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDeepak Sitapuria v Moorzadi Khan 10-Dec-2007
(Liverpool County Court) In relation to provisions in the CPR dealing with uplift of fees in employer’s liability cases, a trial has not commenced for the purposes of the uplift in solicitor’s fees if a settlement is reached before the hearing of . .
CitedDahele v Thomas Bates and Sons Ltd SCCO 17-Apr-2007
The court heard and accepted an argument that there was a lacuna in the CPR provisions relating to the uplift in counsel’s fees in the equivalent rules relating to employer’s liability claims. The rules relating to counsel’s fees unlike those . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.429639

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 limit. The claimant said that a costs judge could extend the time for making the request usung the CPR.
Held: The claim failed. CPR and the Practice Direction have no relevance to the correct construction of the 2000 Regulations. The judge was given no discretion under the rules, and no good reason had been put forward to explain the delay.

Cox J DBE
[2010] EWHC 906 (QB)
Bailii
Community Legal Service (Costs Protection) Regulations 2000 5(3)(c), Civil Procedure Rules 44.17
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn Re C (Legal Aid: Preparation of Bill of Costs) CA 2001
The appellant argued that the Costs Practice Direction, supplementing Parts 43-48 of the CPR, had the same force in law as the Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1991; and that they impliedly amended or repealed them in so . .
CitedRegina (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. . .
CitedSayers v Clarke Walker (A Firm) CA 10-Jul-2002
. .
CitedGodwin v Swindon Borough Council CA 10-Oct-2001
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The . .
CitedD 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.408682

Hall v Rover Financial Services Ltd (Gb) (T/A Land Rover Financial Services): SCCO 10 Oct 2002

The Claimant, who had acquired a Range Rover fro a hire-purchaser, had, the County Court Judge held, obtained good title to the car and so was awarded pounds 38,000 damages against the Defendant finance company who had seized the Range Rover car because it had previously been let out by them to a company called Albahall. The Judge however made no order as to costs in favour of the Claimant. His judgment on costs in full read as follows:
‘So far as costs are concerned, I do not think that this is a proceeding whose necessity arose from the way in which the original purchase from Albahall was made, in circumstances which, as I have tried to make clear in my judgment, ought to have excited suspicion on the part of the purchaser. It, as I held, did not excite such suspicion but it nonetheless is a transaction which accordingly properly excited the suspicion of the Defendant. Since that suspicion on the part of the Defendant arises from what I regard to some extent as misconduct on the part of the Claimant, and I think this is one of those unusual cases where I am justified in making no order for costs in favour of the successful Claimant.’
The Claimant appealed on the question of costs with the permission of the Single Judge and a two Judge court reversed the trial Judge’s decision. That court held that whilst a trial Judge has a very wide discretion in respect of costs he ought not to deprive a Claimant of all or part of his or her costs on the ground of misconduct where the alleged misconduct does not form part of the proceedings, but is conduct extraneous to or preceding, those proceedings.

Longmore and Tuckey LJ j
[2002] EWHC 9033 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.235595

Broadhurst and Another v Tan and Another: CA 23 Feb 2016

‘These appeals are concerned with a point of construction which arises from the apparent tension between the rules fixing costs in most lower value personal injury cases (found in section IIIA of Part 45 of the CPR) and the provisions in Part 36 which specifically apply to such claims.’

[2016] EWCA Civ 94
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560170

Ineos Upstream Ltd and Others v Persons Unknown: ChD 21 Dec 2017

Morgan J
[2017] EWHC 3427 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.602616

Sugar Hut Group Ltd and Others v A J Insurance Service (A Partnership): CA 3 Feb 2016

Appeal against a costs order made by Eder J in the Commercial Court after a three day hearing to assess the quantum of damages to which the Claimants/Appellants were entitled, liability having earlier been compromised on terms that the Defendant/Respondent pay 65% of the Claimants’ recoverable losses.

Longmore, Tomlinson, McCombe LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 46
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559509

RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh and Company Kg (UK Production) No 2 – Order and Costs: SC 21 Jul 2010

The main judgment had not attempted to settle all issues between the parties, and much remained to be done. Any order would not be a final one. As to costs, each party had succeeded in one respect or another, but ‘at the end of this whole process RTS has had a significantly greater success than Muller.’ Though each side had made Part 36 offers, none had direct relevance to the appeal. RTS had already made some payments on account and it was correct that Muller should also now make an appropriate payment. Orders accordingly.
Lord Clarke said: ‘The general principles are not in doubt. Whether there is a binding contract between the parties and, if so, upon what terms depends upon what they have agreed. It depends not upon their subjective state of mind, but upon a consideration of what was communicated between them by words or conduct, and whether that leads objectively to a conclusion that they intended to create legal relations and had agreed upon all the terms which they regarded or the law requires as essential for the formation of legally binding relations. Even if certain terms of economic or other significance have not been finalised, an objective appraisal of their words and conduct may lead to the conclusion that they did not intend agreement of such terms to be a precondition to a concluded and legally binding agreement.’

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Mance, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke
[2010] UKSC 38
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Principal JudgmentRTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh and Company Kg (UK Production) SC 10-Mar-2010
The parties had reached agreement in outline and sought to have the contract formalised, but went ahead anyway. They now disputed whether an agreement had been created and as to its terms if so.
Held: It was unrealistic to suggest that no . .

Cited by:
CitedWells v Devani SC 13-Feb-2019
Mr W was selling apartments in a block of flats. Mr D, an estate agent, sought commission. W argued that D had not had signed his terms, and that therefore no contract existed. The court considered whether a contract had come into being when a major . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.421098

Crooks v Hendricks Lovell Ltd: CA 15 Jan 2016

The court was asked as to the meaning of a defendant’s offer to settle a claim for damages for personal injury under CPR Part 36, and the consequences of that offer for costs once judgment had been given for the claimant and a revised certificate of recoverable benefits issued by the Compensation Recovery Unit

Moore-Bick, Arden, Lindblom LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 8
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558723

Baxter, Regina (on The Application of) v Lincolnshire County Council: CA 18 Dec 2015

This case raises the issue of how costs should be determined in the Administrative Court when the parties have settled their differences in an agreed order which records that the liability for costs should be determined by a Single Judge on the papers.

Floyd, Simon LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1290
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558053

Mahme Trust Reg and others v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc: ChD 14 Jul 2006

Evans-Lombe J
[2006] EWHC 1782 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMahme Trust v Lloyds TSB Bank plc ChD 29-Jul-2004
The claimant began an action in England. The defendant sought a stay, saying the appropriate forum was Switzerland.
Held: The defendant was a truly multi-national orgaisation and had branches in many countries. The choice of forum belongs to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.243154

Rees and Another v Gateley Wareing (A Firm) and Another: ChD 3 Dec 2013

Various defined issues in relation to a contingency fee agreement entered into by a firm of solicitors with their clients. In summary, the issues relate to the interpretation and application of the agreement and its enforceability, having regard to section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Rule 8 of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules 1990 and the common law rules as to champerty.

Mr Justice Morgan
[2013] EWHC 3708 (Ch), [2014] 2 Costs LO 210, [2013] 50 EG 103
Bailii
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58
England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.518583

Hubert, Regina (on The Application of) v Manchester Crown Court and Another (2): Admn 18 Dec 2015

The claimant challenged orders consequential on the DPP’ decision to intervene to stop her intended private prosecution of two doctors

Burnett LJ, Irwin J
[2015] EWHC 3734 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoHubert, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 18-Dec-2015
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the DPP to intervene in and abandon her private prosecution of two doctors involved n what she said was a decision to carry out abortions which decsions were affected by the sex of the foetus. At . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557372

National Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland: ComC 19 Jul 2007

[2007] EWHC 1742 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoNational Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 3-Feb-2006
. .
See AlsoNational Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 7-Aug-2006
Claim for duty of bank to reveal extent of its own involvement where it was supporting investments as between its customers. . .
See AlsoNational Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 15-Sep-2006
Application for discovery of documents. . .
See AlsoNational Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland CA 24-Oct-2006
. .
See AlsoNational Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 14-Nov-2006
On a request for a strike out the test in every case must be what is just and proportionate; and at para 62, as a postscript, that ‘nothing in this judgment affects the correct approach in a case where an application is made to strike out a . .
See AlsoNational Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 11-May-2007
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.258167

Financial Reporting Council Ltd v Frasers Group Plc: ChD 8 Oct 2020

Consequential matters – permission to appeal and costs.

Nugee LJ
[2020] EWHC 2656 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromThe Financial Reporting Council Ltd v Frasers Group Plc ChD 5-Oct-2020
‘This application raises the question whether 3 documents in the hands of the Respondent are privileged from production to the Applicant on the grounds of litigation privilege.’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.654538

Jones v Longley and Others: ChD 20 Nov 2015

The court had made an order removing one executor, though with no criticism. It now considered its order for costs, all parties seeking costs in their favour.
Held: The two personal representatives could not be expected to continue to work together, and at least one must go. Master Matthews said: ‘there are not two sets of rules, one for lawyers and one for laymen. If you embark on litigation without a lawyer, you cannot expect to be judged by rules different from those which apply to litigants legally represented.’

Master Matthews
[2015] EWHC 3362 (Ch)
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981 51, Civil Procedure Rules 44.2(1)
England and Wales

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556755

Various Claimants v McAlpine and Others: QBD 4 Dec 2015

Setting of costs budgets under a Group Litigation Order

Supperstone J, Leslie, M, Gordon-Saker SM SCJ
[2015] EWHC 3543 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoVarious Claimants v Mcalpine and Others QBD 15-Jan-2016
Reasons for rejection of application for reliance upon expert evidence. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556490

The Leasing Number 1 Partnership v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 6 Oct 2015

FTTTx PROCEDURE – Costs – Whether appellants acted unreasonably in not withdrawing appeals sooner – No – Whether evidence of ‘without prejudice’ documents and negotiations admissible in resisting respondents application – Application dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 601 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556397

North Midland Construction Plc v Geo Networks Ltd: TCC 30 Oct 2015

Judgment as to the costs of two applications by the Defendant to strike out the claim form in two actions brought by the Claimant, the Project Yellow claim and the Fibrespeed claim, for failure to serve Particulars of Claim within the relevant time limit. In each case there was a reciprocal application by the Claimant for relief from sanctions. In the Project Yellow claim relief was granted, but in the Fibrespeed claim relief was refused the claim form struck out.

Edwards-Stuart J
[2015] EWHC 3063 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554821

Major Thomas Cochrane v Robert Lord Blantyre: HL 4 Apr 1726

Costs and Expences. –
Trust bonds granted conditionally, if the grantor should procure two commissions held by the grantee, of which he then executed resignations, are reduced upon the ground, that though the grantor held the said resignations in his hands, he did not procure the new commissions in virtue thereof, but in consequence of other means and considerations: but the Court having refused the pursuer his costs, the judgment is reversed, and it is ordered that the Court do case these costs to be taxed and ascertained and forthwith paid to the pursuer.
Appeal – The pursuer having craved that the bonds might be delivered up to him by the clerk, but the defender having stated that he meant to appeal, and the Court having ordered the bonds to remain in process, and not to be delivered up without a fresh warrant, their judgment is affirmed.

[1726] UKHL Robertson – 558, (1726) Robertson 558
Bailii
Scotland

Costs, Trusts

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554229

GBM Minerals Engineering Consultants Ltd v GB Minerals Holdings Ltd (No 2 Costs): TCC 28 Oct 2015

Fraser J
[2015] EWHC 3091 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoGBM Minerals Engineering Consultants Ltd v GB Minerals Holdings Ltd TCC 21-Oct-2015
‘the claimant, GBM Minerals Engineering Consultants Ltd claims a sum slightly in excess of andpound;594,000, said to be due under a contract dated 18 January 2010, pursuant to which the defendant, a Canadian company called GB Minerals Holdings Ltd, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554188

Law v Liverpool City Council: SCCO 10 May 2005

Stewart QC HHJ
[2005] EWHC 90020 (Costs)
Bailii
Citing:
CitedKing v The Victoria Insurance Company Limited PC 20-Mar-1896
Queensland – A cargo of wool was insured ‘at and from Townsville to London’. The lighter carrying the cargo to the ship capsized in the harbour. The insurers paid out and, taking an assignment of the action sued the defendant Government. The latter . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553661

In re Good, deceased; Carapeto v Good and Others: ChD 19 Apr 2002

The normal rules as to costs contained in the CPR should also be followed in probate actions save only that the judge should also take account of the guidance in the Spiers case, where an alternative costs order might be made if the testator or those interested in the residue had been the cause of the litigation or if the circumstances led reasonably to an investigation. In this case a challenge to the will failed, but the challenge had not been without merit, and it remained appropriate to make an order that one half of the claimant’s costs be payable from the estate.
A testator, when there is no suggestion of insanity, is presumed to have remained sane: ‘The burden of proving that a testator knew and approved of the contents of his will lies on the party propounding the will. In the ordinary course, the burden will be discharged by proving the due execution of the will and that the testator had testamentary capacity. Where, however, the will was prepared in circumstances exciting suspicion something more may be required from those propounding the will by way of proof of knowledge and approval of its contents. A relevant standard of proof is, however, simply by reference to that balance of probability.’
As to proof of execution of the will, Rimer J said: ‘The burden of proving that a testator knew and approved of the contents of his will lies on the party propounding the will. In the ordinary course, the burden will be discharged by proving the due execution of the will and that the testator had testamentary capacity. Where, however, the will was prepared in circumstances exciting suspicion, something more may be required from those propounding the will by way of proof of knowledge and approval of its contents. The relevant standard of proof is, however, simply by reference to the balance of probability.’
On undue influence, Rimer J said: ‘the burden of proving that the May will was procured by undue influence on the part of the Carapetos lies squarely on the defendants. He disclaimed any suggestion that in circumstances such as those of the present case there is any scope for a presumption that undue influence was brought to bear on Miss Good, such that the burden is on the Carapetos to rebut it.
In this context, undue influence means coercion. The defendants have to show that, one way or another, the Carapetos so manipulated Miss Good that she felt she had no choice but to make the May will. ‘

Justice Rimer
Times 22-May-2002, Gazette 07-Jun-2002, (2002) WTLR 801, [2002] All ER 141, [2002] EWHC 640
Civil Procedure Rules 44.3
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSpiers v English 1907
The two main principles which should guide the court in determining that costs in an appropriate suit are not to follow the event are firstly where the testator or those interested in the residue had been the cause of the litigation and secondly, if . .
CitedHall v Hall 1868
Even a reprehensible placing of pressure on a testator will not always be undue influence so as to avoid the will: ‘To make a good will a man must be a free agent. But all influences are not unlawful. Persuasion, appeals to the affection or ties of . .
CitedWingrove v Wingrove 19-Nov-1885
To establish the presence of undue influence it is not enough to establish that a person has the power to overbear the will of the testator. It must be shown that the will was a result of the exercise of that power
Sir James Hannen said: ‘To . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromCarapeto v William Marsh Good and others CA 20-Jun-2002
Reltives of the deceased had challenged the will, alleging undue influence and lack of capacity. They sought leave to appeal the grant of probate of the will.
Held: The appeal had no realistic prospect of success. . .
CitedArk and Others v Kaur and Others ChD 17-Sep-2010
The proponents sought to have the will (executed in India) admitted to probate. The daughters denied that he had executed it. The court heard detailed explanations of the procedures said to have been undertaken for the making and execution of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.171261

Qader and Others v Esure Services Ltd: TCC 15 Oct 2015

The key issue raised in the appeal is whether, on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the CPR, a fixed recoverable costs regime now applies to low value personal injury claims arising out of a road traffic accident, which start under the RTA Protocol but no longer continue under that Protocol or the Stage 3 Procedure, and instead proceed on the multi track.

David Grant HHJ
[2015] EWHC B18 (TCC)
Bailii

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553504

The Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Another: ChD 14 Oct 2015

Henderson J
[2015] EWHC 2883 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At ChDFranked Investment Income Group Litigation, The Test Claimants In v Revenue and Customs CA 24-Nov-2016
. .
At ChDLittlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, European, Costs

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553500