Category: Costs

Morris v Wiltshire and Woodspring District Council (No 2): SCCO 30 Nov 2001

Following the decision of Mr Justice Jacob in Morris v Wiltshire and Woodspring District Council (No.1) (Review Case No.3 of 1998) that it was permissible for a litigant in person to have leave to withdraw a bill and to amend it, the claimant, as he has now become, did that in this case. The matter had been referred to a Costs Judge, who, on 1 February 1999, assessed the claimant’s costs at andpound;11,887. The defendant, having made previously unaccepted offers of andpound;8,000 and andpound;10,000 respectively, made a ‘final’ offer on 16 February 1998 in the following terms:
‘We now have our clients’ instructions to offer you in full settlement of your claim for costs in the amended bill the sum of andpound;14,000. Against this [we] will of course offset the two amounts you have agreed to pay in respect of our clients’ costs on the two Chancery matters which remain struck out.’
Following the Costs Judge’s decision to award andpound;11,887, there was argument as to costs, the defendants successfully contending that the claimant had failed to beat their offer of andpound;14,000, and should therefore pay their costs on the assessment of the amended bill, at least from the date of that payment in.
The claimant appealed, and in a detailed judgment the learned Judge decided two separate but important points.
Firstly, he held that the ‘old’ rules, that is to say those contained in the RSC, governed this appeal, because it was the original taxation of 1996 that was still continuing, albeit under a revised bill, and therefore the claimant did not need permission to take the matter to review. However his Lordship held that even if that was wrong, on the facts he would have granted permission to appeal under CPR.
The second point which the Judge decided was that the letter quoted above did not include interest, and, following the decision of Mr Justice Vinelott in Bell v Mahoney [1991] 17 May, unreported, but quoted in Hoffman’s Civil Costs Cases Taxation Handbook, interest was not to be deemed to be included unless expressly referred to.
Applying the normal rules as to the incidence of interest the Judge concluded that, although the final figures were not before him, when the interest was added on the claimant would have beaten the payment in of andpound;14,000, and accordingly the order of the Costs Judge that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs of the assessment of the amended bill was reversed, which will doubtless involve yet further proceedings before the Costs Judge.

Judges:

Mr Justice Roderick Evans sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 14, [2001] EWHC 9015 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.185954

Treasury Solicitor v Regester: 1978

A challenge was made as to the legal costs on the grant of a lease of a valuable commercial property.
Held: In relation to the time spent on the business which was the third factor in the 1972 Order: ‘The magnetic attraction of factor (iii) as a foundation for assessment of fair and reasonable remuneration is that, in the absence of an approved scale applied to value, it is the only figure which is readily calculable. It is an attraction which must be sternly resisted in cases of this sort where one or more of the other factors is such as to dwarf it into insignificance.’

Judges:

Donaldson J

Citations:

[1978] 1 WLR 446, [1978] 2 All ER 920

Statutes:

Solicitors Remuneration Order 1972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA 24-Oct-2003
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.187174

Tharros Shipping Co Ltd and Den Norske Bank Plc v Bias Shipping Ltd [No 3]: 1995

The existence of a business relationship will not always lead the Court to expect a backer to accept liability for costs, e.g. if the financial backer is a bank lending money to a plaintiff, or as here an insurer but it will be a highly relevant consideration.’

Citations:

[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 541

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another CA 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.183810

Glenister v Rowe: CA 21 Apr 1999

The claimant sued for breach of trust. The action was re-instated after being struck out for want of prosecution, but in the meantime the defendant had been made bankrupt and then discharged from bankruptcy. An order for costs was then made which the claimant now sought to enforce.
Held: The possibility of a future costs order was not a liability, contingent or otherwise, at the date of the bankruptcy and was therefore not a debt from which Mr Glenister’s discharge from bankruptcy released him. Under Order 62 Rule 3(2) the claimant had no right to recover the costs except under an order of the court. Whether or not to award costs was entirely in the discretion of the court. Unless and until the court exercised its discretion to make an award of costs, no debt of any kind existed. The making of an order for costs by a court could be seen as a contingency, in the sense of being something that might happen in the future, but it was not a contingent liability. Thorpe LJ said that a distinction had to be drawn between a liability and the risk of a liability.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

Gazette 19-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1221, [2000] Ch 76, [1999] 3 WLR 716, [1999] BPIR 674, [1999] 3 All ER 452

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Ord 62 r3(2), Supreme Courts Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Rowe v Glenister and Others CA 7-Aug-1995
Mrs. Rowe sued Mr. Glenister for breach of trust. The judge struck out the action for the want of prosecution.
Held: A witness’s memory loss is not itself a sufficient reason to strike out an action for want of prosecution. A defendant seeking . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Haine v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Another; Day v Haine CA 11-Jun-2008
Former employees had obtained a protective award against the company for failing to consult on the impending redundancies and submitted proofs of debt to the liquidator who sought guidance from the court. The judge had held that since the Act . .
Cited – Casson and Another v The Law Society Admn 20-Oct-2009
Two solicitors had been made bankrupt and then discharged from bankruptcy. They suffered adjudications by the SDT awarding compensation for matters occurring before the bankruptcies. They appealed, saying that the awards were bankruptcy debts from . .
Applied – Steele, Regina (on the Application of) v Birmingham City Council and The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 16-Dec-2005
The claimant had received an overpayment of benefits (Job seeker’s allowance), but then was made bankrupt. He now said that this was a debt in the bankruptcy.
Held: It was not. At the date of the bankruptcy order, the possible reclaim was not . .
Cited – McCartney and Unite The Union and Another v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (In Administration) ChD 22-Apr-2010
The administrators gave employees of the company notice of termination of their employment. Then administrators refused consent under para 43(6) to actions against the company in the Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal for protective awards, unfair . .
Cited – In re T and N Ltd and Others, Re Insolvency Act 1986 ChD 14-Dec-2005
The court considered the case of Glenister and similar and said: ‘I accept the submission that these cases are not in point to the issue as regards future asbestos claims. There is no element of discretion as regards such claims. If the ingredients . .
Disapproved – 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: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.80871

Heron v TNT (UK) Ltd and Another: CA 2 May 2013

Satellite litigation arising from an attempt by employers’ insurers to recover the costs of defending personal injury litigation from the solicitors who, until they withdrew from the case, were acting for the employee. The application was made in the alternative either on the basis that the solicitors ought to be made the subject of a wasted costs order or, alternatively, a non-party costs order. It was later conceded that, in the context of this case, the application for wasted costs added nothing to that for a non-party costs order and the former was not pursued.

Judges:

Leveson, Beatson, Gloster LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 469, [2013] 4 Costs LR 551, [2013] PNLR 21, [2013] 3 All ER 479, [2014] 1 WLR 1277

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Professional Negligence

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491880

Paturel v Marble Arch Services Ltd: 2005

A claim for costs was made. The solicitor qualified in April 2002, and the matter concluded in 2004. pounds 200 per hour (the Grade B rate) was claimed in the Bill of Costs because he had 15 years litigation experience. This rate was allowed at Detailed Assessment. The payers argued that ‘the deputy master erred in allowing the hourly rate of pounds 200 per hour applicable to a Grade B fee earner in central London for the work done by R. R was admitted as a solicitor on 2 April 2002, although he was said to have 15 years’ litigation experience. However, the guideline bands, as quoted by the deputy master, state that Grade B covers ‘solicitors and legal executives with over four years’ post-qualification experience, including at least four years’ litigation experience.’ pounds 200.00 per hour should not have been allowed and that the appropriate rate would be that of a Grade C, given the solicitor had only 2 years post qualification experience.
Held: The objection was rejected. The Master stated ‘I accept the submission that it is the experience of the representative which is of particular relevance here, experience frequently being as valuable if not more valuable in this area than an academic or professional qualification. The guidelines relied on (by Ms Ackland) are not binding instruments and the considerable experience of the assessors in this appeal is that litigation experience of this length, prior to qualification, would always be recognised and taken into account in determining the appropriate grade of fee earner and hourly rate. I therefore see no error in the deputy master’s decision to allow the rate applicable to a Grade B fee earner.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1055

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.406784

Harold v Smith: 1860

‘Before stating the principle on which the Master acted on this taxation, it may be as well that I should state what we consider the principle upon which he ought to have acted. I think the question is one of considerable importance, and therefore, although it is only a question of reviewing taxation costs, I go into it at some length.
Costs as between party and party are given by the law as an indemnity to the person entitled to them: they are not imposed as a punishment on the party who pays them, nor given as a bonus to the party who receives them. Therefore, if the extent of the damnification can be found out, the extent to which costs ought to be allowed is also ascertained. Of course, I do not say there are not exceptional cases, in which certain arbitrary rules of taxation have been laid down; but, as a general rule, costs are an indemnity, and the principle is this, – find out the damnification, and then you find out the costs which should be allowed.’

Judges:

Baron Bramwell

Citations:

(1860) 5 HandN 381

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Costs

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.182516

Dixon v Allgood: CA 14 Apr 1999

A party wishing to apply for leave to appeal against orders made on separate preliminary hearings within the same action need not issue one application for each order, but can combine them into one application. In this case the issues were related also.

Citations:

Times 30-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1163

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Hawes v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary; S v S; S v S CA 20-May-1993
Separate notices of appeal are not required for appeals against orders made in the same proceedings at the same trial or hearing. ‘There are three notices of appeal before us. Mr Hawes challenges three separate rulings of the judge during the course . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.146078

Pearless De Rougemont and Company v Pilbrow: CA 17 Mar 1999

The defendant had instructed the claimant solicitors to represent him. He had asked to see a solicitor, but had in fact seen an unqualified but very experienced person whose status was not made clear to him. He later refused to pay the bill.
Held: The firm had broken the practice rules. The defendant had contracted for the supply of legal services by a solicitor. Though there was nothing to suggest that he had been disadvantaged by the breach: ‘a firm of solicitors which is asked for a solicitor and, without telling the client that the advisor is not a solicitor, provides an advisor who is not a solicitor should not be entitled to recover anything. ‘ The client should not be obliged to pay the bill.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1011, [1999] 2 FLR 139, [1999] 2 Costs LR 109, [1999] 3 All ER 355

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145926

Hougie v Kranat: CA 11 Mar 1999

The plaintiff applied for an extension of time to file her appeal having been given leave ex parte. The defendant opposed the application. She had been awarded damages for wrongful eviction, but the level of damages awarded had been less than the sum paid in by the defendant, and so she was liable in costs. She said that the court had not taken account of a painting removed by the defendant. Her solicitors had been at fault in calculating the day on which the appeal had to be filed.
Held: Leave to file the appeal out of time was given. The delay was trivial, and there had been no prejudice arising from it.

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Auld LJJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 958

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hougie v Kranat CA 26-Nov-1998
The plaintiff sought leave to appeal against the level of damages awarded to her in her claim for wrongful eviction, and against the costs award made after the award had failed to meet the amount paid into court. She said that by omitting a painting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145873

Phonographic Performance Limited v AEI Redifussion Music Limited: CA 19 Feb 1999

This appeal is concerned with the circumstances in which it is appropriate for an appellate court, to which an appeal lies on a point of law from a tribunal (or court), to interfere with the exercise of a wide discretion to make an order in relation to the payment of the costs of the proceedings.

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[1999] CPLR 551, [1999] EWCA Civ 834, [1999] 1 WLR 1507, [1999] RPC 599, [1999] EMLR 335, [1999] 2 All ER 299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145749

Raja v Rubin and Another: CA 19 Mar 1999

Having waived his right to a dividend under a voluntary arrangement, a creditor could not object to its later variation to include other creditors, despite an absence of explicit power in the deed for this purpose. Waiver should have been made explicit.

Citations:

Times 14-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1039, [1999] 3 All ER 72

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 263 (3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.85656

British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jun 2012

FTTTx COSTS – Customs duty – Reference to CJEU – Challenge by Appellants to inappropriate CNEN – HMRC a party as Respondents – Appellants’ challenge succeeded – Whether costs of Appellants should be awarded against HMRC – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 r.10

Judges:

Sir Stephen Oliver QC

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 386 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Costs

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.462780

Promar International Ltd v Clarke: CA 4 Apr 2006

Breach of post employment restrictive covenant.

Judges:

Mr Justice Bennett Lady Justice Hallett

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 332

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer and Sons Ltd CA 11-Jul-2003
A copyright infringement case had been settled, but the court was to quantify and apportion costs. Some andpound;700,000 having been spent when the damages amounted to andpound;10,000.
Held: Denne did not oust the court’s jurisdiction to hear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Costs

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.240108

AB and others v Department of Trade and Industry S/A British Coal Corporation: CA 21 Dec 2005

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Neuberger Sir Anthony Clarke MR

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1737

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and Coal Mining Contractor Defendants QBD 22-Jun-2004
. .

Cited by:

See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and others CA 19-Oct-2006
A collective compensation agreement, which required affected persons to submit their claims, along with medical evidence, through authorised solicitors to be compensated on the basis of agreed damages formula, was introduced. . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and Another ComC 18-May-2007
Resolution of disputes that have arisen between four claimants and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to the smoking history of four miners, (three of them now deceased), in respect of whom claims for damages have been made . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade and Industry) QBD 27-Jun-2007
The parties disputed the effect of the Claims Handling Agreement (CHA) which regulated claims for compensation for respiratory diseases incurred by people working for the defendant as regards the circumstances for claimants with chronic bronchitis. . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade and Industry) (Costs) QBD 27-Jun-2007
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Rulings Appended) QBD 13-Aug-2007
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation ComC 15-Jan-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.239957

Geraghty and Co v Awwad and Another: CA 25 Nov 1999

The court considered an assertion that a contract for fee sharing with a solicitors firm was unenforceable being in breach of the Solicitors Practice Rules.
Held: The court refused to follow Thai Trading. There should no longer be any common law developments in this field. Now that Parliament had modified the law which had prohibited all arrangements for receiving a contingency fee in relation to litigation services, there was no room for the court to go beyond that which Parliament had now permitted.

Judges:

Schiemann LJ, May LJ, LCJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 3002, [1999] EWCA Civ 3036, [2001] QB 570, [2000] 3 WLR 1041, [2000] 1 All ER 608, [2000] 1 Costs LR 105

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not followed – Thai Trading (a Firm) v Taylor and Taylor (of Taylors Solicitors, Caversham) CA 27-Feb-1998
A solicitor had agreed with his wife to act for her in litigation on the understanding that he would only recover his profit costs if she succeeded.
Held: This agreement did not offend public policy. This type of agreement was distinguished . .
See Also – Awwad v Geraghty and Company CA 8-Sep-1997
The court considered an application for leave to appeal as to whether a litigation agreement was champertous and void. . .

Cited by:

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 – Kenneth L Kellar Carib West Limited v Stanley A Williams PC 24-Jun-2004
(Turks and Caicos Islands) The appellant had failed in his action but argued that he should not be called upon to pay the costs of the respondent because there had been an unlawful conditional fee agreement. The bill had referred to one factor as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.235833

Kenneth L Kellar Carib West Limited v Stanley A Williams: PC 24 Jun 2004

(Turks and Caicos Islands) The appellant had failed in his action but argued that he should not be called upon to pay the costs of the respondent because there had been an unlawful conditional fee agreement. The bill had referred to one factor as the degree of success in the case, and the respondent argued that this showed the existence of a conditional fee element.
Held: The letter relied upon did not establish what was suggested, and nor could the fact that the remuneration rate had not been formally agreed in advance. It was not unlawful as a conditional fee arrangement. The case was remitted for taxation to proceed.
The Privy Council expressed the view that ‘it may now be time to reconsider the accepted prohibition in the light of modern practising conditions.’

Judges:

Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Carswell, Dame Sian Elias

Citations:

[2004] UKPC 30, [2005] 4 Costs LR 559, (2004) 148 SJLB 821

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Way v Latilla HL 1937
Mr Way (W), the plaintiff, was employed by Ariston, which had mining operations in Africa, as a consulting engineer and manager. He met the respondent (L) in England. He was asked to seek options to acquire concessions the respondent might acquire. . .
Cited – Thai Trading (a Firm) v Taylor and Taylor (of Taylors Solicitors, Caversham) CA 27-Feb-1998
A solicitor had agreed with his wife to act for her in litigation on the understanding that he would only recover his profit costs if she succeeded.
Held: This agreement did not offend public policy. This type of agreement was distinguished . .
Cited – Hazlett v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 2-Dec-1999
The need for a party claiming his costs to give evidence to prove his entitlement to costs rather than relying on the presumption in his favour, will not arise if the defendant simply puts the complainant to proof of his entitlement to costs. The . .
See also – Kellar v Williams PC 7-Feb-2000
PC (Turks and Caicos Islands) The parties disputed whether sums paid to the company had been by way of loan or as capital contributions which after payment of debts were distributable among the shareholders.
Cited – Geraghty and Co v Awwad and Another CA 25-Nov-1999
The court considered an assertion that a contract for fee sharing with a solicitors firm was unenforceable being in breach of the Solicitors Practice Rules.
Held: The court refused to follow Thai Trading. There should no longer be any common . .

Cited by:

See Also – Kellar v Williams PC 7-Feb-2000
PC (Turks and Caicos Islands) The parties disputed whether sums paid to the company had been by way of loan or as capital contributions which after payment of debts were distributable among the shareholders.
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 – Patel, Re Defendant’s Cost Order CACD 6-Jul-2012
The defendant had been granted a defendant costs order, but he had not complied with the Rules by first outlining the type of costs and amount claimed’ and the Court had not required compliance. He had successfully appealed against a conviction for . .
Cited – Radford and Another v Frade and Others QBD 8-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to the terms on which solicitors and Counsel were retained to act for the defendants. The appeals did not raise any issues concerning costs practice, and were by way of review of the Costs Judge’s rulings, and not by way of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.198381

In re Taxation of Costs In re Solicitors: 1943

Citations:

[1943] KB 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Penningtons (a Firm) v Brown CA 30-Apr-1998
The claim concerned the plaintiffs claim for costs having represented the defendant successfully. They delivered a bill which detailed disbursements, and gave a 14 line narrative, but no other detail. The defendant requested more detail, being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.183467

Mastercard UK Members Forum Ltd Mastercard International Inc: CAT 28 Jul 2006

Citations:

[2006] CAT 15

Links:

Bailii

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.

Commercial, Costs

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.244580

Alpha Chauffeurs Ltd v Citygate Dealership Ltd ((T/A Hr Owen) and Another: CA 20 Feb 2003

After an action with regard to a lease contract for a car, orders were made including for costs. The costs orders were now appealed. The claimant recovered nominal damages from the first defendant, and substantial damages from the second. The second in turn recovered substantially against the first.
Held: The order made did not distribute the costs according to the burden of the judgment, and the judge had not given any reason for departing from the normal practice. The order was wrong, and orders were made distributing the costs with the fault found by the judge..

Judges:

Lords Justice Mummery, Chadwick and Dyson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 207, Gazette 17-Apr-2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.180716

Christie v Wilson and Others: CA 13 Jan 1999

The second defendant appealed an order that he pay the costs of the claimant in his successful defamation action. The action had been decided by a jury rejecting the assertion that the claimant an athlete had used drugs.
Held: There was no justification for a suggestion that nominal damages alone might have been ordered, and therefore no proper challenge to the costs order.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 552

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Christie v Wilson; McVicar and Alexside Limited CA 10-Jun-1998
The same rules must apply to solicitor and barrister advocates, as regards conduct of litigation, once having given advice which was acted upon, and on which claim the action was based. A solicitor was not barred from acting as advocate in . .
Cited – Roache v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd 1998
In looking at questions of costs in libel actions it is often appropriate to consider, as a matter of substance and reality, who was the true winner in the proceedings. . .

Cited by:

See also – Christie v Wilson; McVicar and Alexside Limited CA 10-Jun-1998
The same rules must apply to solicitor and barrister advocates, as regards conduct of litigation, once having given advice which was acted upon, and on which claim the action was based. A solicitor was not barred from acting as advocate in . .
See also – Mcvicar v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-May-2002
It was not inconsistent with article 6 to expect both claimants and defendants in defamation proceedings to act in person. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145467

London Borough of Southwark v Nejad and others: CA 21 Jan 1999

The availability of a system for allowing extensions of time for taxation of bills of costs meant that a court had other means of penalising the delaying party than refusal of leave. The judge should not adopt a mechanistic approach but seek to stay fair.

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 628

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145543

Kuwait Oil Company (KSC) v Al-Tarkait (Practice and Procedure – Costs): EAT 4 Dec 2019

A costs order made by the tribunal under rule 78(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 was within its powers, even though it capped the costs in favour of the appellant (the respondent below) in an amount that had not yet been precisely ascertained. The tribunal had been entitled to have regard to the claimant’s means and ability to pay, under rule 84; and although the precise amount of the cap was not stated as an exact figure, the costs order was sufficiently certain to comply with the requirement that the order should identify the ‘specified part’ of the costs to which it related.
The cap on the costs recoverable by the appellant did not usurp the jurisdiction of an employment judge or county court costs judge conducting a subsequent detailed assessment. That judge would still have to determine the amount payable under the costs order; the cap imposed by the tribunal did not determine the amount payable, only the maximum amount payable. The appeal therefore failed and the costs order stands. However, it would be better to specify any such cap as an exact sum, rather than as an amount that was only known as an approximation.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0210 – 19 – 0412

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650911

Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Mole Valley District Council and Another: Admn 15 Nov 2013

Decision after successful request for judicial review of decision to grant planning permission. The respondent and interested party resisted costs orders saying that the claimant had not been successful on all points.
Held: In general the award should be made, with limited exceptions.

Judges:

Haddon-Cave J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3558 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership CA 31-Jul-2002
The defendant firm of solicitors appealed an order for costs against it based upon a percentage calculation. They sought an issues based costs order.
Held: Where there was insufficient information upon which to calculate an issues based costs . .
Cited – Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of Canada and others v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Uk) and Another ComC 16-Nov-2006
. .
Cited – HLB Kidsons (A Firm) v Lloyds Underwriters (Policy No 621/Pkid00101) and others Comc 22-Nov-2007
. .
Cited – Goodwin v Bennetts UK Ltd (Costs) CA 11-Dec-2008
. .
Cited – Fox v Foundation Piling Ltd CA 7-Jul-2011
Parties are entitled to make a Calderbank offer outside the framework of Part 36. The precise formulation of such an offer would of course depend upon the facts of a particular case, but the offer would be made without prejudice save as to costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.517805

Cope v United Dairies: 1963

Megaw LJ said: ‘Mr Hames agreed that the taxing master could not properly refuse to carry out an order for taxation, in whole or in part, because he considered it to be wrong or ultra vires, and the same applies to a court on review. With that proposition, I agree.’

Judges:

Megaw LJ

Citations:

[1963] 2 QB 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Moore CACD 12-May-2003
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court, but succeeded on appeal. Costs had been ordered in his favour, but the matter had been referred back to the court to consider the extent of its powers on such an occasion.
Held: The making . .
Cited – Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd ChD 31-Jul-2009
The court was asked ‘Where a claimant has picked up one or more costs orders in its favour on the way to a trial, but fails very badly at the trial (for example due to exaggeration), can the costs judge assess those costs at nil on the footing that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.182394

Assari v Wilson: CA 26 Nov 1998

The plaintiff appealed an order for costs of a failed application to transfer the case to the High Court.
Held: The application was always going to fail, and the additional reliefs obtained had not been resisted by the defendant. The judges award of costs was discretionary, and not to be set aside here.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Waller

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1854

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.145333

RTZ Pension Property Trust Ltd v ARC Property Developments Ltd and Asfa Limited: CA 26 Nov 1998

Where a plaintiff discontinued his action, but still sought costs from the defendant, he had to show some misconduct by the defendant, such as encouraging the action by concealment of a defence. A mere late amendment causing no loss was not enough.
Potter LJ said: ‘I approach this case on the basis that, where discontinuance occurs in circumstances tantamount to an acknowledgement of defeat, then the normal rule as to costs, namely that the defendant is entitled to an order for his costs of the action, should apply unless good reason can be shown to the contrary. The nature of that good reason will vary according to the form of order which the plaintiff seeks. The alternative forms are of course ‘no order as to costs’ or, more rarely, an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs in respect of a particular issue or issues, or a particular period of time, in respect of which costs have been wasted or unnecessarily incurred as a result of the defendant’s conduct of the proceedings.’

Judges:

Potter LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1638, [1999] 1 All ER 532

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re A Firm of Solicitors ChD 9-May-1995
A solicitor moving from a firm acting on one side of a dispute to the firm on the other side must be able to show that no conflict of interest would arise. The court should intervene unless it is satisfied that there is no risk of disclosure. It . .

Cited by:

Cited – Davies v Davies CA 4-Mar-1999
The marriage was unhappy. The wife consulted briefly but did not instruct a solicitor, Mr Tooth. Some 7 years later as divorce proceedings were considered, the husband did instruct Mr Tooth. She sought to prevent him acting, but then wanted to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.88910

King v Telegraph Group Ltd: CA 18 May 2004

The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being represented under a conditional fee agreement. The court considered that the amount of costs being incurred served to act as an improper deterrent to defendant publishers, and they should not be held in terrorem by inflated costs agreements. If less claimants pursued cases because lawyers were reluctant to take cases unless they were assessed to have a much greater than evens chance of success, then that was a price to be paid. Brooke LJ said: ‘A claimant brings an action like this not only to recover damages but also to vindicate his reputation, but that consideration cannot go too far to bridge the gulf between the value of this action to the Claimant and its value to the lawyers instructed in the case. As I have said, something seems to have gone seriously wrong’.
Brooke J also said: ‘What is in issue in this case, however, is the appropriateness of arrangements whereby a defendant publisher will be required to pay up to twice the reasonable and proportionate costs of the claimant if he loses or concedes liability, and will almost certainly have to bear his own costs (estimated in this case to be about pounds 400,000) if he wins. The obvious unfairness of such a system is bound to have the chilling effect on a newspaper exercising its right to freedom of expression . . and to lead to the danger of self-imposed restraints on publication which he so much feared . . It is not for this court to thwart the wish of Parliament that litigants should be able to bring actions to vindicate their reputations under a CFA, and that they should not be obliged to obtain ATE cover before they do so . . On the other hand, we are obliged to read and give effect to relevant primary and secondary legislation so far as possible in a way that is compatible with a publisher’s Article 10 Convention rights . . In my judgment the only way to square the circle is to say that when making any costs capping order the court should prescribe a total amount of recoverable costs which will be inclusive, so far as a CFA-funded party is concerned, of any additional liability. It cannot be just to submit defendants in these cases, where their right to freedom of expression is at stake, to a costs regime where the costs they will have to pay if they lose are neither reasonable nor proportionate and they have no reasonable prospect of recovering their reasonable and proportionate costs if they win.
If this means . . that it will not be open to a CFA-assisted claimant to receive the benefit of an advocate instructed at anything more than a modest fee or to receive the help of a litigation partner in a very expensive firm who is not willing to curtail his fees, then his/her fate will be no different from that of a conventional legally aided litigant in modern times. It is rare these days for such a litigant to be able to secure the services of leading counsel unless the size of the likely award of compensation justifies such an outlay, and defamation litigation does not open the door to awards on that scale today. Similarly, if the introduction of this novel cost-capping regime means that a claimant’s lawyers may be reluctant to accept instructions on a CFA basis unless they assess the chances of success as significantly greater than evens (so that the size of the success fee will be to that extent reduced), this in my judgment will be a small price to pay in contrast to the price that is potentially to be paid if the present state of affairs is allowed to continue.’
The court re-iterated the ‘conduct rule’ in defamation cases: ‘(1) There is a rule of general application in defamation (dubbed the ‘repetition rule’ by Hirst LJ in Shah) whereby a defendant who has repeated an allegation of a defamatory nature about the claimant can only succeed in justifying it by proving the truth of the underlying allegation – not merely the fact that the allegation has been made;
(2) More specifically, where the nature of the plea is one of ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’, it is necessary to plead (and ultimately prove) the primary facts and matters giving rise to reasonable grounds of suspicion objectively judged;
(3) It is impermissible to plead as a primary fact the proposition that some person or persons (e.g. law enforcement authorities) announced, suspected or believed the claimant to be guilty;
(4) A defendant may (for example, in reliance upon the Civil Evidence Act 1995) adduce hearsay evidence to establish a primary fact – but this in no way undermines the rule that the statements (still less beliefs) of any individual cannot themselves serve as primary facts;
(5) Generally, it is necessary to plead allegations of fact tending to show that it was some conduct on the claimant’s part that gave rise to the grounds of suspicion (the so-called ‘conduct rule’).
(6) It was held by this court in Chase . . that this is not an absolute rule, and that for example ‘strong circumstantial evidence’ can itself contribute to reasonable grounds for suspicion.
(7) It is not permitted to rely upon post-publication events in order to establish the existence of reasonable grounds, since (by way of analogy with fair comment) the issue has to be judged as at the time of publication.
(8) A defendant may not confine the issue of reasonable grounds to particular facts of his own choosing, since the issue has to be determined against the overall factual position as it stood at the material time (including any true explanation the claimant may have given for the apparently suspicious circumstances pleaded by the defendant).
(9) Unlike the rule applying in fair comment cases, the defendant may rely upon facts subsisting at the time of publication even if he was unaware of them at that time.
(10) A defendant may not plead particulars in such a way as to have the effect of transferring the burden to the claimant of having to disprove them.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Kay Lord Justice Johnathan Parker

Citations:

Times 21-May-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 613, [2004] EMLR 429, [2005] 1 WLR 2282, [2004] 3 Costs LR 449, [2004] CP Rep 35, [2004] EMLR 23

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 29-May-2002
A libel defence of justification which was based on ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’ must focus on conduct of claimant that gives rise to suspicion. It was not permissible to rely upon hearsay. Defendant may not plead as ‘grounds’ material which . .
Mentioned – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd HL 1964
Ascertaining Meaning of Words for Defamation
The Daily Telegraph had published an article headed ‘Inquiry on Firm by City Police’ and the Daily Mail had published an article headed ‘Fraud Squad Probe Firm’. The plaintiffs claimed that those articles carried the meaning that they were guilty of . .
Mentioned – Evans v Granada Television CA 1996
In a defamation action, it is open to the defendant to justify the imputation by establishing that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff from an objective point of view.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘But the jury are concerned with . .
Cited – Shah and Another v Standard Chartered Bank CA 2-Apr-1998
The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of orders striking out the defences of justification to their libel action.
Held: The words complained of bore an accusation of money laundering. A plea of justification based upon a reasonable belief in . .
Cited – Stern v Piper and Others CA 21-May-1996
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be . .
Cited – Bennett v News Group Newspapers 2002
The defendant newspaper ran a story about investigations into several police officers at Stoke Newington police station, who had ultimately been cleared. The newspaper had pleaded a Lucas-Box meaning (2) that there were sufficient grounds for . .
Cited – Pedder v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 2002
The court expressed concern at the costs being incurred in defamation cases after the introduction of conditional fee agreements. Additional elements in an abuse of process case may include the ability of the claimant to pursue a claim at no risk in . .
Cited – Olakunle O Olatawura v Alexander O Abiloye CA 17-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged an order requiring him to give security for costs before proceeding. The judge had felt he was unreasonable in the way he was pursuing his claim. He appealed saying the order was made outside the scope of Part 25.
Held: . .
Cited – Lillie and Reed v Newcastle City Council, Barker, Jones, Saradjian, Wardell QBD 30-Jul-2002
The applicants sought judicial review of a report prepared for the respondent. They had been accused of child abuse whilst working as nursery assistants.
Held: The report was fundamentally flawed, and almost deliberately designed to . .
Cited – Roache v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd 1998
In looking at questions of costs in libel actions it is often appropriate to consider, as a matter of substance and reality, who was the true winner in the proceedings. . .
Cited – Mcvicar v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-May-2002
It was not inconsistent with article 6 to expect both claimants and defendants in defamation proceedings to act in person. . .
Cited – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) CA 26-May-1999
The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be . .
Cited – Alex Lawrie Factors Limited v Morgan and Others CA 5-Jul-1999
A statement of truth or affidavit must reflect the words and thoughts of the witness who signed it. It is not appropriate to include matters about which the witness could not themselves give evidence, including particularly complex arguments sought . .
Cited – A B and others v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust QBD 9-May-2003
The claimants were involved in a group litigation with regard to the removal of organs without consent from deceased children. The defendant sought an order capping the costs which might be claimed.
Held: In GLO cases the desirability of . .
Cited – Aquarius Financial Enterprises v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s 2001
. .
Cited – Solutia UK Limited v Griffiths CA 26-Apr-2001
The court considered issues relating to the appropriateness of the claimants instructing London solicitors in a case in which those solicitors had submitted a bill of costs totalling pounds 220,000 in connection with a claim in which their clients . .
See Also – Musa King v Telegraph Group Ltd SCCO 18-May-2004
. .
Appeal from – Musa King v Telegraph Group Limited QBD 9-Jun-2003
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Brunt and others v Southampton International Airport Ltd CA 7-Feb-2005
The claimants lived near Southampton Airport. The airport was altered to allow larger aircraft to use it, and they claimed damages for the increased noise and disturbance. Land had been acquired for additional parking. The number of aircraft flying . .
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 – Musa King v Telegraph Group Ltd SCCO 18-May-2004
. .
Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v The Governor and Company of the Bank of England ComC 12-Apr-2006
The claimants had pursued compensation over many years from the defendants alleging various kinds of misfeasance in regulating the bank BCCI. The action had collapsed.
Held: ‘this was extraordinary litigation which came to an abrupt albeit . .
Cited – Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp CA 4-Nov-2008
The court considered an application for a protective costs order in judicial review proceedings in environmental law cases.
Held: The central decision was Corner House Research, but that was to be applied purposively and not rigidly. It was . .
Cited – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4) QBD 4-Mar-2009
Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation.
Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
Cited – Hunt v Evening Standard Ltd QBD 18-Feb-2011
The defamation claimant sought that certain paragraphs of the defence should be struck out.
Held: Several paragraphs of the defence were struck out, and others left. . .
Cited – Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 20-Jun-2011
The defendant sought clarification through the court as to the meanings inherent in the words complained of.
Held: The application failed. ‘I do not consider the ordinary reasonable reader would be perverse to conclude that the suspicions . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.196967

Nelson v Greening and Sykes (Builders) Ltd: CA 18 Dec 2007

The builders had obtained a charging order for the costs awarded to them in extensive litigation, and a third party costs order but without the third party having opportunity to test the bill delivered. They had agreed to sell land to the defendant, but he had required the transfer to be in a different form and in favour of the third party who had provided the funds. Eventually the transfer had been signed by the court and registered, but subject to the charging order.
Held: The appeals failed. The defendant had conducted the litigation on behalf of the third party as her trustee. After contract, and until completion, the vendor becomes in equity a trustee for the purchaser. The defendant was still such a tristee, and ‘the authorities have no application to a case where the trust property is the purchaser’s interest in land created by the existence of an executory contract for sale and purchase.’ The other party had made clear her own involvement in the matter, writing: ‘the matter between your client and me will become a long-running saga along a costly course from Dewsbury to Strasbourg.’
This is as far removed from the normal case of a trustee consulting a beneficiary as it is possible to be. This was obsessive and pointless litigation conducted by Mr Nelson with the active encouragement and support of Ms Hanley.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1358, Times 22-Jan-2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Charging Orders Act 1979 2(1)(b)(I), Supreme Court Act 1981 51(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Saunders v Vautier 7-May-1841
A direction in a will stated that the income from certain shares was to be accumulated and invested until the beneficiary attained the age of 25. On attaining his majority at 21 years, the beneficiary sought termination of the trust, and transfer of . .
Cited – Grey and Another (Hunter’s Nominees) v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1958
Where a person who is the owner beneficially of property (and the legal estate is vested in another as trustee for him) makes a declaration of trust the practical effect amounts to the ‘getting rid of’ a trust or equitable interest then subsisting. . .
Cited – Egmont v Smith CA 1877
The court discussed the position of a vendor of land between exchange and completion: ‘He is certainly a trustee for the purchaser, a trustee, no doubt, with peculiar duties and liabilities, for it is a fallacy to suppose that every trustee has the . .
Cited – Englewood Properties Limited v Patel and Another ChD 16-Feb-2005
The claimant was a property developer, which sought to sell a row of shops at auction. One lot was a Woolworths store, where the company owned both freehold and leasehold interests, with Woolworths occupying an underlease, which the claimant had . .
Cited – Rayner v Preston CA 8-Apr-1881
The vendors agreed to sell a house which they had insured against fire risk. The house was damaged by fire after contract but before completion, and the issue was whether the purchaser was entitled to the benefit of the insurance.
Held: . .
Cited – Hamilton v Al Fayed and Others (No 2) CA 17-May-2002
The claimant had lost a libel action and been bankrupted. The defendant sought to recover his costs from those who had financially supported the claimant. He now appealed a dismissal of his request for contributions.
Held: An order for the . .
Cited – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Limited v Todd and Todd, Bilgola Enterprises Ltd and Lambton Quay Books Ltd PC 7-Oct-2002
PC (New Zealand) The claimants asserted that the respondents had wrongly terminated their franchise licence. The agreement was subject to the New South Wales law requiring good faith, but the court had not had . .
Cited – Goodwood Recoveries Ltd v Breen CA 19-Apr-2005
A claim against the defendant for money owed to someone else had been bought by the claimant of which Slater, a solicitor, was a director and shareholder. The claim was pursued in the name of the claimant by Slater as its solicitor and principal . .
Cited – Globe Equities Ltd v Globe Legal Services Ltd and others and Other Actions CA 5-Mar-1999
A court which was considering ordering a third party, who was not party to the action, to pay costs in an action, should first be satisfied that it is just to do so in all the circumstances. There is no need to establish any exceptional . .
Cited – Gleeson v J Wippell and Co Ltd ChD 1977
The court considered the circumstances giving rise to a plea of res judicata, and proposed a test of privity in cases which did not fall into any recognised category. ‘Second, it seems to me that the sub-stratum of the doctrine is that a man ought . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice, Trusts

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.262880

MCA Records Inc v Charly Records Ltd and others (No 5): CA 29 Nov 2001

Thre had been an action for copyright and trade mark infringement. The court considered the personal liability of directors of the company for the costs of the action.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1923, [2003] 1 BCLC 93, [2002] EMLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – MCA Records Inc and Another v Charly Records Ltd and others (No 5) CA 5-Oct-2001
The court discussed the personal liability of a director for torts committed by his company: ‘i) a director will not be treated as liable with the company as a joint tortfeasor if he does no more than carry out his constitutional role in the . .

Cited by:

See Also – MCA Records Inc and Another v Charly Records Ltd and others (No 5) CA 5-Oct-2001
The court discussed the personal liability of a director for torts committed by his company: ‘i) a director will not be treated as liable with the company as a joint tortfeasor if he does no more than carry out his constitutional role in the . .
Cited – John Louis Carter Fourie v Allan Le Roux and others CA 7-Mar-2005
The defendant’s company in South Africa had become insolvent and the claimant had recovered judgment for arrears of rent. They obtained a freezing order against the defendant. The defendant appealed saying the court did not have jurisdiction, and . .
Applied – Experience Hendrix Llc v Purple Haze Records Ltd and Another ChD 24-Feb-2005
The claimant company sought summary judgment against the defendants who had manufactured and sold unauthorised recordings of a concert by the late Mr Hendrix in Sweden in 1969.
Held: The performance was given retrospective protection under the . .
Cited – Bunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
Cited – Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.201507

Regina v Birmingham Union Guardians: 1878

Citations:

(1878) 44 LJMC 48

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Hastings Licensing Justices ex parte Lovibond QBD 1968
The court granted an order of certiorari to quash a decision of licensing justices. The magistrates had not resisted the appeal, but commercial rivals of the licensee had persisted with their objection.
Held: ‘it is very rare that this court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.194535

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Shelter: 1997

The court refused to make a costs order against Shelter on the grounds that: (i) there were already pending before the court a sequence of individual cases raising precisely the same issue; (ii) the legal question raised was of genuine public interest; (iii) the applicant’s involvement had assisted the court in determining the issue speedily; and (iv) had the matter been determined in separate proceedings, it was likely that any applicant would have been legally aided, and thus the burden of his/her costs would have fallen upon the tax payer and the respondent would not have obtained an order for his costs.

Judges:

Carnwath J

Citations:

[1997] COD 49

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, Judicial Review

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.223262

Dunnett v Railtrack Plc (302): CA 22 Feb 2002

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 302

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Dunnett v Railtrack plc CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant had appealed a judgment against her. The court itself recommended that the parties use a method of alternate dispute resolution, to avoid the need for appeal. The defendant refused, not wishing to make any payment over and above the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.216777

Ali Reza-Delta Transport Co Ltd v United Arab Shipping Co Sag: CA 17 Jun 2003

The case had concluded. Offers of settlement had been made and the operative one included an offer on the interest payable. The court came to decide how the interest part of the offer was to be considered when assessing whether the judgment bettered the offer. It was noted that an offer on costs was to be disregarded, and it was claimed that in contradistinction, an offer relating to interest related to a central part of the matter judged.
Held: The Appellants only offered to accept what they were claiming, and the offer of a concession on the interest uplift was irrelevant. Concessions as to uplift interest should also be left out of account as for costs.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr. Justice Nelson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 811, Times 04-Jul-2003, Gazette 11-Sep-2003, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 276, [2004] 1 Costs LR 18, [2003] CP Rep 57, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 455, [2003] 3 All ER 1297, [2004] 1 WLR 168

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36.21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mitchell and Others v James and Others CA 12-Jul-2002
The defendant had made an offer including an offer that each party bear their own costs. A later action led to an order on better terms, and the claimant sought costs on an indemnity basis.
Held: The rules were generally incompatible with . .
Cited – Liesbosch Dredger (Owners of) v Owners of SS Edison, The Liesbosch HL 28-Feb-1933
The ship Edison fouled the moorings of the Liesbosch resulting in the total loss of the dredger when it sank. It had been engaged on work in the harbour under contract with the harbour board. All the owners’ liquid resources were engaged in the . .
Cited – Kiam II v MGN Ltd (2) CA 6-Feb-2002
An appeal against a damages award in a defamation case had been unsuccessful. The claimant now appealed for the award of indemnity costs. The claimant had made an offer of compromise, which had been ignored by the defendant.
Held: If a party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Costs

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.183638

Neave v Neave: CA 6 Feb 2003

The claimant sought return of vehicles from her son. Her compromise offer was rejected, but she bettered it at trial. She appealed refusal of her indemnity costs.
Held: The offer letter had not complied strictly with the requirements of the Rules, but the purpose of the rule was to encourage parties to compromise their litigation in order to save the resources of the court, irrespective of whether any litigation should have been commenced at all. The offer was clear and reasonable. Accordingly the irregularity was waived, and costs on an indemnity basis awarded from 21 days after the letter.

Judges:

Lords Justice Potter, Chadwick and Tuckey

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 325, Gazette 10-Apr-2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.180721

Persaud and Another v Persaud and others: CA 6 Mar 2003

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ, Mummery LJ, Blackburne J

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 394, [2003] PNLR 26, [2004] 1 Costs LR 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Application for leave to appeal – Dempsey v Johnstone CA 30-Jul-2003
The solicitors appealed against a wasted costs order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.180729

Singh v Law Society: QBD 5 Dec 2001

Several partners in a solicitors practice may have been at fault, but only one partner had been brought before the tribunal. He appealed against an order making him solely responsible for the costs.
Held: There was nothing necessarily wrong with such an order.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Mrs Justice Hallet and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton

Citations:

Times 21-Jan-2002, Gazette 21-Feb-2002

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974 47(2)(i), Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1994 (1994 No 288) 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.167394

Boehringer Ingelheim and others v Vetplus Ltd: CA 5 Jul 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 661

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd CA 20-Jun-2007
The claimants appealed refusal of an order restricting comparative advertising materials for the defendant’s competing veterinary medicine. The claimant said that the rule against prior restraint applicable to defamation and other tort proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.254460

Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions v Baylis (Gloucester) Ltd and others: CA 16 Dec 2002

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 361

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions v Baylis (Gloucester) Ltd; Bennett Construction (UK) Ltd v Baylis (Gloucester) Ltd ChD 16-May-2000
Land once conveyed for the purposes of becoming a highway, became dedicated for that purpose even though no steps were ever taken for its use for that purpose. The registration of a company as proprietor by the Land Registry did not displace the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.245799

Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans: 2 Jan 1982

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 1164

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans HL 1982
The Court found the probationer police constable to have been unlawfully induced to resign, but the court could not order his reinstatement. A power must be exercised by the precise person or body stated in the statute. Though courts may review the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans HL 1982
The Court found the probationer police constable to have been unlawfully induced to resign, but the court could not order his reinstatement. A power must be exercised by the precise person or body stated in the statute. Though courts may review the . .
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: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223260

Dumford Trading Ag v OAO Atlantrybflot (Costs): CA 26 Jan 2005

Costs order upheld – leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 113

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Main Judgment – Dumford Trading Ag v Oao Atlantrybflot CA 26-Jan-2005
an appeal against summary judgment under CPR Part 24 for some pounds 1,890,000 under two contracts of guarantee. . .
See Also – Dumford Trading Ag v Oao Atlantrybflot CA 17-Sep-2004
Applications for suspension of enforcement pending appeal and similar. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.222934

Re Wembley Park Estate Co Ltd’s Transfer: 1968

The court confirmed the rule in Jeffkins and added that ‘the costs payable to the defendant should be paid on the common fund basis ‘since the obtaining of the order is something in the nature of a luxury to the plaintiff for which he ought to pay.’

Judges:

Goff J

Citations:

[1968] Ch 491

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Confirmed – Re Jeffkins Indentures 1965
‘a plaintiff seeking a declaration that restrictive covenants do not affect his property is expected to pay his own costs. He is also expected to pay the costs of any defendants who enter an appearance down to the point in proceedings at which they . .

Cited by:

Cited – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 14-Dec-2004
The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants.
Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Land

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.220712

Re Jeffkins Indentures: 1965

‘a plaintiff seeking a declaration that restrictive covenants do not affect his property is expected to pay his own costs. He is also expected to pay the costs of any defendants who enter an appearance down to the point in proceedings at which they have had a full opportunity of considering the matter and deciding whether or not to oppose the application. Any defendant who then decides to continue, and appears unsuccessfully before the judge, does so at his own risk as to his own costs at that stage. Such defendant should not however be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs.’

Judges:

Cross J

Citations:

[1965] 1 WLR 375

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Confirmed – Re Wembley Park Estate Co Ltd’s Transfer 1968
The court confirmed the rule in Jeffkins and added that ‘the costs payable to the defendant should be paid on the common fund basis ‘since the obtaining of the order is something in the nature of a luxury to the plaintiff for which he ought to pay.’ . .
Cited – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 14-Dec-2004
The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants.
Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Land

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.220711

In re A Debtor: 1951

Citations:

[1951] Ch 162

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.216507

Booth v Britannia Hotels Ltd: CA 26 Mar 2002

The claimant had made a large personal injury claim (pounds 617,000) but was forced to reduce it to all but nothing when video evidence was provided shortly before trial. She accepted a payment in of pounds 2,500 and other benefits worth just over pounds 20,000. The defendants agreed to pay her costs on the standard basis. On assessment the district judge ordered that the defendants pay all the costs relating to liability and 60% of the costs relating to quantum. She then examined all the separate items, allowed the assessed costs of the liability items and 60% of the assessed costs of the quantum items. The defendants appealed, saying that the deduction was arbitrary and gave insufficient weight to what had happened.
Held: The district judge assessing the costs had gone about it the wrong way. She should have assessed the various items first, allowing them or disallowing them as appropriate, and after that she could and should have allowed a percentage award having regard to the damages actually obtained. ‘She had to ask herself what costs (ie what items of expenditure) were reasonably incurred and what would be a reasonable amount to allow in respect of each of those items in order to establish quantum against the background that, at the end of the day, the son accepted was pounds 2500 and repayment of benefit to the CRU.
In the context of this case that, to my mind, means that the district judge should have started by going through the bill of costs and ruling out all of those items she considered to be unjustified (for example, almost all of the medical fees, cost of retaining leading counsel, etc). That would, no doubt, have left some items which were plainly reasonable as items, even if questionable in amount, and other items where it would be difficult if not impossible to disentangle what was reasonable from what was unreasonable even having regard to the way in which rule 12(1) required that doubts be resolved. At that stage, but not any earlier stage, it would, in my judgment, be appropriate for the discreet judge to consider awarding a percentage of the sum claimed, but the percentage awarded would have to be such that at the end of the exercise the total amount awarded by way of costs could be regarded as reasonable having regard to the amount of damages obtained. In other words, the district judge must give herself an opportunity to look at the result in the round before concluding her arithmetic. In the present case her approach was wrong because in particular it deprived her of that opportunity and resulted in a conclusion that it was reasonable for the claimant to expend about pounds 57,000 in order to recover pounds 2,500 and to require the defendants to pay 60 per cent of the sum expended. That, in my judgment, must be nonsense.
I accept of course that the district judge must work within the ambit of the order made in relation to costs, whether it be a consent order or an order made after a contested hearing.’

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 579, [2003] 1 Costs LR 43

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Booth v Britannia Hotels Ltd SCCO 26-Mar-2002
(CA) The Claimant worked as a part time chambermaid at a Manchester Hotel, where, on 14 November 1991, she sustained a minor crush injury to her left hand while making a bed. She was then aged 17.5. Three years later she started proceedings in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd ChD 31-Jul-2009
The court was asked ‘Where a claimant has picked up one or more costs orders in its favour on the way to a trial, but fails very badly at the trial (for example due to exaggeration), can the costs judge assess those costs at nil on the footing that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.216890

National Anti-Vivisection Society Ltd v Duddington: 23 Nov 1998

The trustee of the Society had actively defended a trust action but failed. He sought an indemnity for his costs.
Held: He was not entitled to an indemnity for costs out of the trust assets. His acts had preferred one group of beneficiaries over another. A trustee’s neutrality in a trust dispute was sacrosanct.

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Alsop Wilkinson v Neary and Others ChD 4-Nov-1994
The second defendant, a solicitor, had fraudulently taken money from trusts, and paid money into trusts for his own family. It was claimed that the payments were intended to defeat the recovery of the funds. The trustees sought protection on costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Costs

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.198268