Citations:

[2018] EWHC B7 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.619772

The paying party under an order for costs objected to the amount of leadig counsel’s fees.
Held: Pennycuick J discussed Rule 28(2) and the Smith -v- Bullins Case: ‘The words ‘or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the rights of the party whose costs are being taxed’ must, I think, now be read in after the word ‘necessary’ in the statement of principle made by Malins V-C’

Judges:

Pennycuick J

Citations:

[1965] 1 WLR 112

Citing:

See Also – Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation (No 1) CA 1962
The use of land purchased under compulsory powers for a different purpose was ultra vires, but did not undermine the original notice to treat. There was no reason not to use a compendious description of the range of purposes for which land was to be . .
At HL – Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation HL 1964
The plaintiff complained of an attempt by the defendant local authority to enforce in October 1958 a CPO made several years earlier. He obtained at first instance an injunction to restrain the local authority from proceedings on the basis of an . .

Cited by:

Cited – Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust v Acres QBD 22-Mar-2013
The defendant challenged the use by the claimant of solicitors from Central London in her claim for personal injury. She was a radiographer, and her work involved exposure to dangerous materials, though in this case it arose from use of machinery . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.471974

(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 the case has started. As for the rule applicable to counsel, if a case settles on the day of a hearing but before it starts, the claim concludes within a period the start of which is the specified number of days before the date fixed for the commencement of the hearing and not ‘at trial’.
HH Judge Stewart QC disagreed with the judgment of Master Haworth in Dahele v Thomas Bates and Son Ltd [2007] EWCA 90072 (costs) in which he decided that a case ‘concludes at trial’ for the purpose of the rule relating to uplift in counsel’s fees if it settles on the day fixed for trial. He also disagreed with adopting this construction to interpret ‘at trial’ in the rule relating to solicitors as meaning on the day fixed for the hearing.

Judges:

HH Judge Stewart QC

Citations:

Unreported, 10 December 2007

Cited by:

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

Costs

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.429644

Where there is a payment into court with a denial of liability, costs will follow the event, and it is rare for a plaintiff to get his costs on the issue of liability. Sellers LJ said: ‘The action of tort consists of wrongdoing and damage resulting therefrom and the Plaintiff must prove both to obtain a judgment. On the face of it there can be no complaint and no ground for an order for costs on the issue of liability because the plaintiff is being called on to prove a case to establish his right to damages and has failed to get more than the amount in court. A payment into court is an offer to dispose of the action and if accepted prevents all further costs. A plaintiff who continues an action after a payment in takes a risk and cannot normally complain if he has to pay all the costs which his acceptance of an award would have avoided.’

Judges:

Sellers LJ

Citations:

[1962] All ER 266

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.347782

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 witness pursuant to a conditional fee agreement. The claim failed and Slater’s honesty was seriously impugned by the judge. An application that the costs of the defendant should be paid by Slater personally on an indemnity basis succeeded. Slater appealed.
Held: The jurisdiction for making personal costs orders against a director of a company involved in litigation is a developing one and: ‘Where a non-party director can be described as the ‘real party’, seeking his own benefit, controlling and/or funding the litigation, then even where he has acted in good faith or without any impropriety, justice may well demand that he be liable in costs on a fact-sensitive and objective assessment of the circumstances. It may also be noted that in Lord Brown’s comments at para 33 of his opinion ‘the pursuit of speculative litigation’ is put into the same category as ‘impropriety’.’ The director was found to be guilty of procuring the claimant company, of which he was a director, to commit improprieties in its prosecution of the claim with the result that the court concluded that those improprieties were causative of the entire costs incurred by the defendant in his successful defence.

Judges:

Lord Justice May and
Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 414, [2006] 1 WLR 2723, [2007] 2 Costs LR 147, [2006] 2 All ER 533

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .

Cited by:

Cited – BE Studios Ltd v Smith and Williamson Ltd ChD 2-Dec-2005
The claimant company had failed in its action. The court was asked to make a costs order personally against the principal director of the claimant who had controlled the litigation and funded it. He responded that no impropriety had been shown on . .
Cited – Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others CA 17-May-2007
The owner had agreed to sell a long lease of an apartment to the defendant. Part of the price was to be by way of set off of an existing debt, but ths was not set out in the contract. The claimant bought the land and the benfit of the contract from . .
Cited – Chantrey Vellacott v The Convergence Group Plc and others ChD 31-Jul-2007
The claimants, a firm of accountants, sued their former clients for unpaid fees. The defendant company counterclaimed for professional negligence. The claimant had expended andpound;5.6m in costs. The claimants now sought a non-party costs order . .
Cited – 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, . .
Cited – Goknur v Aytacli CA 13-Jul-2021
Third Party Costs – Director of Insolvent Company
(Organic Village) The Court considered the circumstances Limited in which a director and shareholder of an insolvent company may be personally liable for some or all of that company’s costs liabilities incurred in unsuccessful litigation, pursuant . .
Cited – HB v PB FD 9-Jul-2013
Claim for costs against third party local authority, Croydon LBC after four day private law fact finding hearing. F said that M had fabricated illnesses both in herself and the child leading to the LA being asked to prepare a report. That report . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.224253

The judge had concluded that the insurers’ conduct of an unsuccessful defence was sufficiently self-motivated to make it the real defendant in all but name, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against an order that it be liable in costs as a third party.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rimer

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 46, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 535

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – TGA Chapman Limited; Benson Turner Limited v Christopher and Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc CA 8-Jul-1997
A section 51 application was made because the cover was limited under the defendant’s liability policy and insufficient to pay all the damages, let alone any part of the costs, and the defendant was not worth powder and shot. Nonetheless the claim . .
Leave to appeal – Palmer v Palmer CA 18-May-2007
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Cited – HB v PB FD 9-Jul-2013
Claim for costs against third party local authority, Croydon LBC after four day private law fact finding hearing. F said that M had fabricated illnesses both in herself and the child leading to the LA being asked to prepare a report. That report . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.264116

Defendant’s application for an order that unless the claimant pays within seven days the sum of pounds 600,000 as security for the defendant’s costs in these proceedings, the claimant’s claim be struck out, and judgment entered for the defendant without further notice.

Judges:

O’Farrell DBE J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3069 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.655948

Application for security for costs.

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1343 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.655552

The plaintiff had accepted a payment in which was more advantageous than its own offer of settlement. It now sought costs on an indemnity rather than a standard basis. They argued that under the rule they were entitled to costs on an indemnity basis up to date of acceptance.
Held: The rules said that once a payment in was accepted the court retained no discretion. Rule 36.21 could only be applied where the court had itself been involved in deciding the damages.

Judges:

Jacob J

Citations:

Times 06-Nov-2002, Gazette 01-Nov-2002

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36.21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd PatC 3-Oct-2000
The plaintiff alleged infringement of its European Patent in a vacuum cleaning appliance. The defendants sought its revocation on the statutory grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency, and for threats. . .
See Also – Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd PatC 5-Apr-2001
The claimant had obtained injunctive relief against the defendant for patent infringement. Only twelve months of the patent remained, and the claimants applied for an extension of the injunction twelve months beyond the patent expiry, and for other . .
See Also – Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited CA 4-Oct-2001
Hoover appealed a finding that Dyson’s patent was valid and infringed. They asserted the patent was not novel in the light of a US patent, and even so was obvious. One test was whether an application of the claimed patent would inevitably infringe . .

Cited by:

See Also – Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 4) PatC 18-Feb-2003
The court refused to make an order for a payment of interim costs when the substantive claim for costs remained to be heard. The claimant had accepted a payment in entitling it to its costs, but now sought an interim award before the full costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.178033

Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party

A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now appealed.
Held: The appeals were allowed. The court’s discretion when awarding costs as conferred by section 51(3) was wide. Lord Goff of Chieveley said: ‘thus ensuring that the court has, so far as possible, freedom of action, leaving it to the rule-making authority to control the exercise of discretion (if it thinks it right to do so) by the making of rules of court, and to the appellate courts to establish principles upon which the discretionary power may, within the framework of the statute and the applicable rules of court, be exercised.’ The jurisdiction provided by this Section was not subject to any implied limitation that costs could only be awarded against those who were parties to the litigation. Non-parties could be ordered to pay costs where justice so required. Nevertheless, an order for the payment of costs by a non-party will always be exceptional, and a person or entity who had been ordered to pay such costs would be able to appeal against the order, even though he, she or it was not a party to the original action.
Lord Goff: ‘. . . it is not surprising to find the jurisdiction conferred under section 51(1), like its predecessors, to be expressed in wide terms. The subsection simply provides that ‘the court shall have full power to determine by whom . . . the costs are to be paid.’ Such a provision is consistent with a policy under which jurisdiction to exercise the relevant discretionary power is expressed in wide terms, thus ensuring that the court has, so far as possible, freedom of action, leaving it to the rule-making authority to control the exercise of discretion (if it thinks it right to do so) by the making of rules of court, and to the appellate courts to establish principles upon which the discretionary power may, within the framework of the statute and the applicable rules of court, be exercised. ‘ and
‘In the vast majority of cases, it would no doubt be unjust to make an award of costs against a person who is not a party to the relevant proceedings….. I do not, for my part, foresee any injustice flowing from the abandonment of that implied limitation. Courts of first instance are, I believe, well capable of exercising their discretion under the statute in accordance with reason and justice. I cannot imagine any case arising in which some order for costs is made, in the exercise of the court’s discretion, against some person who has no connection with the proceedings in question. If any problem arises, the Court of Appeal can lay down principles for the guidance of judges of first instance; or the Supreme Court Rules Committee can propose amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court for the purpose of controlling the exercise of the statutory power vested in judges subject to rules of court. ‘

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

[1986] AC 965, [1986] 2 WLR 1051, [1986] 2 All ER 409

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Overruled – Forbes-Smith v Forbes-Smith and Chadwick CA 1901
W petitioned for judicial separation. H cross-petitioned for divorce, citing C as co-respondent. The actions were consolidated, W’s petition withdrawn, and a decree absolute of divorce granted to H. A costs order was made against C. On taxation, H . .
Overruled – Fairfax (John) and Sons v E C de Witt and Co CA 1958
. .
Appeal from – Interbulk Limited v Aiden Shipping Co Limited (The ‘Vimeira’) CA 1984
The court considered whether an arbitrator had a duty to raise a point missed by counsel.
Held: Robert Goff LJ: ‘In truth, we are simply talking about fairness. It is not fair to decide a case against a party on an issue which has never been . .

Cited by:

Cited – Murphy, and Murphy v Young and Co’s Brewery Plc, Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc CA 20-Nov-1996
When an unsuccessful party has had its legal costs funded under legal expenses insurance, should the insurer be held liable to pay the successful party’s costs? The insurer had not instigated the litigation, nor controlled it, and could not be . .
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 – Individual Homes Ltd v Macbream Investments Ltd ChD 23-Oct-2002
The claimant had in the course of proceedings obtained an order requiring an employee of the third party to attend as a witness. That third party now sought to be joined so as to claim its costs.
Held: The Act and the rules allowed the court . .
Cited – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd and others (No. 2) PC 21-Jul-2004
PC (New Zealand) Costs were sought against a non-party, following an earlier determination by the Board.
Held: Jurisdiction to make such an order was not complete. Where the order sought was against a . .
Applied – Goldsworthy v Brickell CA 1987
The plaintiff had granted a tenancy of his substantial farm to the first defendant, and made him a partner. The first defendant later bought out the plaintiff who was in turn later reconciled with his only son who had previously had some . .
Cited – McDonald and Others v Horn and Others CA 8-Aug-1994
A court may make a pre-emptive award of costs to pension fund members who wished to sue the trustees. Hoffmann LJ said: ‘if one looks at the economic relationships involved, there does seem to me to be a compelling analogy between a minority . .
Cited – Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd and others CA 26-May-2005
The court considered the costs aftermath of a huge claim undertaken on a no win no fee basis and failing. The funder of the claim complained at an award of costs against it.
Held: Those who fund litigation must accept that their risks extend . .
Cited – 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 – BE Studios Ltd v Smith and Williamson Ltd ChD 2-Dec-2005
The claimant company had failed in its action. The court was asked to make a costs order personally against the principal director of the claimant who had controlled the litigation and funded it. He responded that no impropriety had been shown on . .
Cited – Ward and others v Sabherwal and others T/A Nath Bros. QBNI 13-Nov-2000
. .
Cited – M J Benyon and others v David Scadden and others EAT 14-Jun-1999
The tribunal had found that the claimants and their union had pursued their case, even though they recognised the weakness of the case, with the additional intention of persuading their employer to recognise their union, UNISON. Such behaviour was . .
Cited – Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods Plc CA 12-Nov-1999
Where a case had been remitted by the EAT to a tribunal for reconsideration in respect of matters specified by the EAT, the tribunal’s consideration was to be limited to those matters remitted. It was not open to the tribunal to consider matters . .
Cited – B Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care EAT 9-Mar-2000
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal . .
Cited – Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis), Papadimitriou v Symes (A Bankrupt) Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership) Jean-Louis Domercq ChD 20-Oct-2004
Dr Zamar had given expert evidence in the principal proceedings. It was now said that that evidence had not been given in the proper way, and a remedy was now sought. . .
Cited – In Re Andrews CA 25-Feb-1999
The defendant and his son had been charged with offences relating to their joint business, and restraint orders were made. The son was convicted, but the defendant was acquitted and awarded his costs out of central funds. The taxing officer held . .
Cited – Capewell v Revenue and Customs and Another HL 31-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in . .
Cited – Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others CA 17-May-2007
The owner had agreed to sell a long lease of an apartment to the defendant. Part of the price was to be by way of set off of an existing debt, but ths was not set out in the contract. The claimant bought the land and the benfit of the contract from . .
Applied – Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd 25-Jun-1992
(High Court of Australia) Two orders for the payment of costs had been made against the receivers and managers of the claimant in the action, Forest Pty Ltd, and the defendant to a counterclaim brought by the defendants to the action, Howe . .
Cited – Webster (the Parents) v Norfolk County Council and others CA 11-Feb-2009
Four brothers and sisters had been adopted after the parents had been found to have abused them. The parents now had expert evidence that the injuries may have been the result of scurvy, and sought leave to appeal.
Held: Leave was refused. . .
Cited – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
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 . .
Cited – The Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner CA 23-Nov-2010
A losing candidate at a local election alleged corrupt and illegal practices relating to the entry of non-existent people on the electoral roll and using postal votes. The Election Commissioner found this proved and the election void, and awarded . .
Cited – The Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner and Others Admn 19-Feb-2010
A local election result had been set aside for fraud in the winning Conservative candidate. The Commissioner made an order for costs against his party which was now challenged for lack of jurisdiction the Commissioner being functus officio, and the . .
Cited – Goknur v Aytacli CA 13-Jul-2021
Third Party Costs – Director of Insolvent Company
(Organic Village) The Court considered the circumstances Limited in which a director and shareholder of an insolvent company may be personally liable for some or all of that company’s costs liabilities incurred in unsuccessful litigation, pursuant . .
Cited – Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Cited – HB v PB FD 9-Jul-2013
Claim for costs against third party local authority, Croydon LBC after four day private law fact finding hearing. F said that M had fabricated illnesses both in herself and the child leading to the LA being asked to prepare a report. That report . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Leading Case

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.179731

Citations:

[2018] EWHC B2 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.619767

Citations:

[2018] EWHC B5 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.619770

Citations:

[2018] EWHC B11 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.619775

The Practice Rules conferred a discretion as to costs only in cases in which before the Judicature Acts the courts would have had jurisdiction to make awards of costs. The Act of 1890 was intended to confer such jurisdiction in any case whatever.

Citations:

(1886) 34 Ch D 24

Statutes:

Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1890

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McDonald and Others v Horn and Others CA 8-Aug-1994
A court may make a pre-emptive award of costs to pension fund members who wished to sue the trustees. Hoffmann LJ said: ‘if one looks at the economic relationships involved, there does seem to me to be a compelling analogy between a minority . .
Cited – Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.223255

Judges:

Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 548

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – TGA Chapman Limited; Benson Turner Limited v Christopher and Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc CA 8-Jul-1997
A section 51 application was made because the cover was limited under the defendant’s liability policy and insufficient to pay all the damages, let alone any part of the costs, and the defendant was not worth powder and shot. Nonetheless the claim . .

Cited by:

Leave to appeal – Palmer v The Estate of Kevin Palmer Deceased and others CA 6-Feb-2008
The judge had concluded that the insurers’ conduct of an unsuccessful defence was sufficiently self-motivated to make it the real defendant in all but name, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against an order that it be liable in costs as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.254360

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 circumstances. There must be a connection between the incurring of the costs and the actions of the third party.
Morritt LJ said: ‘Ultimately the test is whether in all the circumstances it is just to exercise the power conferred by subsections (1) and (3) of section 51, Supreme Court Act 1981 to make a non-party pay the costs of the proceedings. …[I]t will be a matter for judgment and the exercise by the judge of his discretion to decide whether the circumstances relied on are such as to make it just to order some non-party to pay the costs. Thus, as it seems to me, the exceptional case is one to be recognised by comparison with the ordinary run of cases not defined in advance by reference to any further characteristic.’

Judges:

Morritt LJ

Citations:

Times 14-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 905, [1999] BLR 232

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – BE Studios Ltd v Smith and Williamson Ltd ChD 2-Dec-2005
The claimant company had failed in its action. The court was asked to make a costs order personally against the principal director of the claimant who had controlled the litigation and funded it. He responded that no impropriety had been shown on . .
Cited – Chantrey Vellacott v The Convergence Group Plc and others ChD 31-Jul-2007
The claimants, a firm of accountants, sued their former clients for unpaid fees. The defendant company counterclaimed for professional negligence. The claimant had expended andpound;5.6m in costs. The claimants now sought a non-party costs order . .
Cited – 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, . .
Cited – Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.145820

Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the claimants in the successful action were not insured, and Travelers, the defendant’s insurers resisted payment of their costs.
Held: Travelers’ appeal succeeded. It could not be shown that they had unjustifiably interfered. They had acted within the scope of actions taken to defend the action against the insured claimants’. Nor had they taken such control of the action as to have become the real defendant in it.
‘ the two bases under which an insurer might become liable to a non-party costs order identified in the Chapman case, namely by intermeddling or becoming the real defendant, do represent a principled approach to the engagement of this jurisdiction against liability insurers, which is much preferable to the quest for factors which may satisfy an elusive concept of exceptionality. Where the claim itself falls within the scope of the insurance, whether or not subject to limits of cover, the real defendant test will usually be the appropriate one to apply.’
‘First, the underlying question, whether the non-party has either become the real defendant in relation to an insured claim, or intermeddled in an uninsured claim, is fundamental to the exercise of the section 51 jurisdiction, in insurance cases. It is the conduct of the non-party which matters, rather than the mere rarity of the case.
Secondly, the Chapman principles are useful guidelines for establishing whether the liability insurer has become the real defendant in all but name, in a case where some part of the claim (including the claim for costs) is or may lie outside the limits of cover, so that the insured has at least a prima facie joint interest with the insurer in the outcome of the litigation.
Thirdly , the Chapman principles are not likely to be of assistance where the question is (as here) whether the liability insurers crossed the line in becoming involved in the funding and conduct of the defence of wholly uninsured claims, as opposed to claims where there is limited cover. In such cases the insurer may cross the line by conduct falling well short of total control, and without becoming the real defendant, if the insurer intermeddles in the uninsured claim in a manner which it cannot justify.
But, fourthly, where there is a connection between uninsured claims and claims for which the insurer has provided cover, it may well be that the legitimate interests of the insurer will justify some involvement by the insurer in decision-making and even funding of the defence of the uninsured claims without exposing the insurer to liability to pay the successful claimant’s costs. This is just such a case because of the very close connection between insured and uninsured claims, raising common issues to be tried together in test cases in group litigation, and the limited nature of Travelers’ involvement in the uninsured claims.
Fifthly, causation remains an important element in what an applicant under section 51 has to prove, namely a causative link between the particular conduct of the non-party relied upon and the incurring by the claimant of the costs sought to be recovered under section 51. If all those costs would have been incurred in any event, it is unlikely that a section 51 order ought to be made.
Sixthly, the non-disclosure of limits of cover by the defendant at the request of the insurer is unlikely to amount to relevant conduct, for as long as the law continues to make that non-disclosure legitimate.
Seventhly, asymmetry or lack of reciprocity in costs risk, as between the uninsured claimant and the defendant’s insurer, is unlikely on its own to be a reason for the making of a non-party costs order against the insurer where, as here, the asymmetry arises because a claimant sues an uninsured and insolvent defendant and incurs several-only costs liability in group litigation.’

Judges:

Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sumption

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 48, [2019] Costs LR 1915, [2019] Lloyd’s Rep IR 683, [2019] 1 WLR 6075, [2019] WLR(D) 599, [2020] 2 All ER 239, [2020] 1 All ER (Comm) 1007, (2020) 171 BMLR 1, UKSC 2018/0117

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Jun 11 am Video, SC 2019 Jun 11 pm Video

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first instance – XYZ v Travelers Insurance Company Ltd QBD 24-Feb-2017
Application for an order under section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981 that Travelers Insurance Company Ltd pay to the applicants the costs they incurred in their successful claims against Transform Medical Group (CS) Limited (in Administration) for . .
Appeal from – Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ CA 17-May-2018
The issue raised on this appeal is the liability for costs arising out of litigation concerning the supply of defective implants for use in breast surgery, which had been manufactured by PIP. The claims were made in group litigation under a Group . .
Cited – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
See Also – X Y Z v Various Companies (PIP Breast Implant Litigation) QBD 22-Nov-2013
. .
Cited – New Zealand Forest Products Limited v the New Zealand Insurance Company Limited PC 21-Jul-1997
(New Zealand) Proceedings had been instituted in five causes of action against a company and its director, whose costs were both covered by an insurance policy, and in the case of one of the causes of action against a third person not so covered. . .
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
Cited – Citibank NA v Excess Insurance Co Ltd 1999
A section 51 application was prompted by the reporting of the Chapman case, and decided by Thomas J specifically upon the basis that the continued defence of the quantum of the claim after judgment on liability had been conducted by the insurers . .
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 – Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and Another CA 21-Jan-2016
Appeal from Order joining party for purposes of third party costs order. . .
Cited – Groom v Crocker 1939
An action by a client against a solicitor alleging negligence in the conduct of the client’s affairs, is an action for breach of contract. A solicitor is not entitled to payment of his costs by his client where his own negligence makes the work he . .
Cited – Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson CA 4-May-1993
A section 51 non-party costs application should not be used as a substitute for the pursuit of a related cause of action against the non-party in ordinary proceedings. Nine rules were set out for allowing a costs order against someone who is not a . .
Cited – Giles v Thompson, Devlin v Baslington (Conjoined Appeals) HL 1-Jun-1993
Car hire companies who pursued actions in motorists’ names to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle after an accident, from negligent drivers, were not acting in a champertous and unlawful manner. Lord Mustill said: ‘there exists in . .
Cited – Murphy, and Murphy v Young and Co’s Brewery Plc, Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc CA 20-Nov-1996
When an unsuccessful party has had its legal costs funded under legal expenses insurance, should the insurer be held liable to pay the successful party’s costs? The insurer had not instigated the litigation, nor controlled it, and could not be . .
Cited – TGA Chapman Limited; Benson Turner Limited v Christopher and Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc CA 8-Jul-1997
A section 51 application was made because the cover was limited under the defendant’s liability policy and insufficient to pay all the damages, let alone any part of the costs, and the defendant was not worth powder and shot. Nonetheless the claim . .
Cited – Palmer v The Estate of Kevin Palmer Deceased and others CA 6-Feb-2008
The judge had concluded that the insurers’ conduct of an unsuccessful defence was sufficiently self-motivated to make it the real defendant in all but name, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against an order that it be liable in costs as . .
Cited – Legg and Others v Sterte Garage Ltd and Another CA 23-Feb-2016
Proceedings for damages for negligence and nuisance, and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Cited – Doe Dem Masters v Gray 1830
An order for costs was made in an action of ejectment against a parish council which had put a pauper into possession of the premises in question. Lord Tenterden CJ said: ‘In ejectment we can make the real party to the suit pay the costs.’ . .
Cited – Hayward v Giffard And Grove Cex 1838
The court refused to make an order for costs against a non-party though he was interested in its outcome.
Lord Abinger CB said: ‘If we were at liberty to consult equity and justice, we should probably make this rule absolute. But the authority . .
Cited – Forbes-Smith v Forbes-Smith and Chadwick CA 1901
W petitioned for judicial separation. H cross-petitioned for divorce, citing C as co-respondent. The actions were consolidated, W’s petition withdrawn, and a decree absolute of divorce granted to H. A costs order was made against C. On taxation, H . .
Cited – Mobbs v Vandenbrande And Wife, Late Youens Executrix Of Price 29-Jan-1864
Blackburn J said: ‘In ordinary cases, where there has been no abuse of its process, the court has no jurisdiction to order a person not a party on the record to pay costs.’ . .
Cited – In re Mills’ Estate CA 1886
The Practice Rules conferred a discretion as to costs only in cases in which before the Judicature Acts the courts would have had jurisdiction to make awards of costs. The Act of 1890 was intended to confer such jurisdiction in any case whatever. . .
Cited – In re Jones ChD 1870
The solicitor had engaged to indemnify the plaintiff against the costs of a ‘doubtful suit’ which failed. Lord Hatherley LC said that he thought it the duty of the Court to be anxious to see that solicitors not only performed their duty towards . .
Cited – Coondoo v Mookerjee 1876
The award of costs in In re Jones was based on the court’s disciplinary jurisdiction over solicitors . .
Cited – The Attorney-General v The Skinners’ Company Ex Parte Watkins 15-Apr-1837
. .
Cited – Regina v William Greene 11-Jan-1843
Relator proceedings were brought by an indigent plaintiff who had been procured to bring them by an attorney.
Lord Denman CJ said: ‘Nothing, however, is more certain than that this court has in several instances granted costs against persons . .
Cited – Andrews v Barnes CA 12-Jun-1888
The parish vicar and his churchwardens brought an action to recover a small sum paid to the members of a local committee for charitable purposes, saying the gift had been made subject to a condition which it proved impossible to fulfil.
Held: . .
Cited – Sangar and Others v Gardiner And Others 22-Jun-1838
How payment of costs enforced by and against persons not parties to the suit. . .
Cited – Amelia Leigh v James Rose SCS 19-Dec-1792
An attorney defending in an action for a person abroad, is not liable personally for the expenses awarded against his constituent. . .
Cited – Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd 25-Jun-1992
(High Court of Australia) Two orders for the payment of costs had been made against the receivers and managers of the claimant in the action, Forest Pty Ltd, and the defendant to a counterclaim brought by the defendants to the action, Howe . .
Cited – Kerr v Employers’ Liability Assurance Co Ltd SCS 1902
An injured workman who had obtained an award of damages and expenses against his employer sought, after the employer became insolvent, to obtain an award of expenses against the insurer. It was accepted that, under the policy, the insurers had . .
Cited – M’Cuaig v M’Cuaig SCS 5-Jan-1909
Lord President Dunedin observed: ‘The true test of whether a party is or is not dominus litis is probably whether he has or has not the power to compromise the action.’ and: ‘ . . the true interest in the cause, and by true interest I mean the . .
Cited – Mathieson v Thomson SCS 1853
Lord Rutherford said: ‘There may be some difficulty in defining exactly what is a dominus litis; but I confess that I very much agree with what has been laid down by your Lordship [Lord President McNeill, later Lord Colonsay], and with the . .
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 – Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and Another CA 21-Jan-2016
Appeal from Order joining party for purposes of third party costs order. . .
Cited – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd and others (No. 2) PC 21-Jul-2004
PC (New Zealand) Costs were sought against a non-party, following an earlier determination by the Board.
Held: Jurisdiction to make such an order was not complete. Where the order sought was against a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insurance

Leading Case

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.642833

PC (New Zealand) Costs were sought against a non-party, following an earlier determination by the Board.
Held: Jurisdiction to make such an order was not complete. Where the order sought was against a non-party (and, indeed, the first such order to be sought in the proceedings), it is supplemental to the judgment already pronounced and sealed and in no way varies it, the board retained the power to make it. ‘a non-party could not ordinarily be made liable for costs if those costs would in any event have been incurred even without such non-party’s involvement in the proceedings. ‘ These proceedings would not have been commenced without the involvement of the Association against which the costs order was now sought.’ The conditions required to make a third party liable in costs were met, and an order was made.
Lord Brown said: ‘Although costs orders against non-parties are to be regarded as ‘exceptional’, exceptional in this context means no more than outside the ordinary run of cases where parties pursue or defend claims for their own benefit and at their own expense. The ultimate question in any such ‘exceptional’ case is whether in all the circumstances it is just to make the order. It must be recognised that this is inevitably to some extent a fact-specific jurisdiction and that there will often be a number of different considerations in play, some militating in favour of an order, some against.’
. . And ‘Where, however, the non-party not merely funds the proceedings but substantially also controls or at any rate is to benefit from them, justice will ordinarily require that, if the proceedings fail, he will pay the successful party’s costs. The non-party in these cases is not so much facilitating access to justice by the party funded as himself gaining access to justice for his own purposes. He himself is ‘the real party’ to the litigation, a concept repeatedly invoked throughout the jurisprudence . .’

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Dame Sian Elias

Citations:

[2004] UKPC 39, [2004] 1 WLR 2807

Links:

Bailii, PC

Jurisdiction:

New Zealand

Citing:

See also – 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 – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
Cited – Lindo v Barrett PC 1856
The Board refused the appellant’s application, made a year after the order allowing its substantive appeal, for an order for the costs of the appeal: ‘[I]t is impossible now, after the matter has been disposed of, and the Order in Council acted . .
Cited – Metalloy Supplies Ltd (In Liquidation) v MA (UK) Ltd CA 7-Oct-1996
A costs order against liquidator of company in litigation is only rarely to be given. The court should ask who is the ‘real’ party to the litigation.
Millett LJ said: ‘[An order] may be made in a wide variety of circumstances where the third . .
Cited – Hamilton v Al Fayed (2) CA 13-Oct-2000
A third party who financially supported a court action had no right to be joined as a party even at hearings at which decisions would be made which might affect his potential liabilities. Those who financially support proceedings must acknowledge . .
Cited – Murphy, and Murphy v Young and Co’s Brewery Plc, Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc CA 20-Nov-1996
When an unsuccessful party has had its legal costs funded under legal expenses insurance, should the insurer be held liable to pay the successful party’s costs? The insurer had not instigated the litigation, nor controlled it, and could not be . .

Cited by:

See also – 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 – Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd and others CA 26-May-2005
The court considered the costs aftermath of a huge claim undertaken on a no win no fee basis and failing. The funder of the claim complained at an award of costs against it.
Held: Those who fund litigation must accept that their risks extend . .
Cited – BE Studios Ltd v Smith and Williamson Ltd ChD 2-Dec-2005
The claimant company had failed in its action. The court was asked to make a costs order personally against the principal director of the claimant who had controlled the litigation and funded it. He responded that no impropriety had been shown on . .
Cited – Myatt and others v National Coal Board (No 2) CA 16-Mar-2007
The parties had been involved in compensation claims. Complaint was made that the solicitors had recovered fees for action which substantially was intended to benefit the solicitor. The conditional fee agreements had been found to be unenforceable. . .
Cited – Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others CA 17-May-2007
The owner had agreed to sell a long lease of an apartment to the defendant. Part of the price was to be by way of set off of an existing debt, but ths was not set out in the contract. The claimant bought the land and the benfit of the contract from . .
Cited – Lingfield Properties (Darlington) Ltd v Padgett Lavender Associates QBD 18-Nov-2008
Application for non-party costs order against litigation funder. The third party denied that he was a person against whom an order could be made, and denied his formal involvement in the companies funding the litigation.
Held: Such an order . .
Cited – Thomson v Berkhamsted Collegiate School QBD 2-Oct-2009
Costs were to be sought against third parties to the action. A pupil had taken court action against the school seeking damages, alleging that it had failed to protect him from bullying. His action was discontinued. The school now sought its costs . .
Cited – Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 18-Apr-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order.
Held: The court only has jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Weatherford Global Products Ltd v Hydropath Holdings Ltd and Others TCC 10-Oct-2014
Application by successful party to join a third party so as to make costs order against him. . .
Cited – Excalibur Ventures Llc v Texas Keystone Inc and Others CA 18-Nov-2016
Excalibur had entered into a conditional fee agreement with its solicitors to suport its intended claim against the respondents. Funders had advanced some andpound;13m to take the mater forward. . .
Cited – Goknur v Aytacli CA 13-Jul-2021
Third Party Costs – Director of Insolvent Company
(Organic Village) The Court considered the circumstances Limited in which a director and shareholder of an insolvent company may be personally liable for some or all of that company’s costs liabilities incurred in unsuccessful litigation, pursuant . .
Cited – Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.199671

A successful defendant was entitled to claim his travelling expenses (from South Africa) to conduct the case in person and to the reasonable costs of travelling in connection with the case.

Citations:

Times 10-May-1990

Costs

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.392836

Citations:

[1789] EngR 1612, (1789-1817) 1 Ves Jun Supp 53, (1789) 34 ER 688 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Costs

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.367243

Under an award in a cause, which award was afterwards made an order of Court, the costs of certain parties were directed to be taxed and paid to them out of the fund : a part of those costs was incurred in proceedings upon a case sent to law ; when the bills were carried in for taxation it was discovered that the person who had acted as their solicitor throughout the suit, and who had already been paid in full, was not a solicitor, but an attorney only ; the Master thereupon disallowed all the items in the bills except disbursements to the clerk in Court, and his taxation was confirmed on appeal.

Citations:

[1830] EngR 783, (1830) 1 Russ and My 744, (1830) 39 ER 285

Links:

Commonlii

Costs

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.321663

There was evidence that the plaintiff was no longer trading, and that it had previously received support from another company which was a creditor of the plaintiff company and therefore had an interest in the plaintiff’s claim continuing. The court considered an application for security for costs.
Held: Before the court refuses to order security on the ground that it would unfairly stifle a valid claim, the court must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is probable that the claim would be stifled if an order was made.

Citations:

[1990] BCLC 263

Cited by:

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

Costs

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.225886

Citations:

[1904] 2 KB 435

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: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.216504

Counsel had been appointed for the tribunal to resist an appeal against the order the tribunal had made.
Held: As to costs: ‘It does not matter to the tenant (who is legally aided) whether the costs come out of one fund or another, but so that we should not be making a precedent I do not think we should give costs against the tribunal. We never give costs unless they act improperly.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1955] 1 All ER 691

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Costs

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194537

In the context of a compulsory purchase of a central London building, the court commented on the various factors which the Order required to be taken into account. In relation to ‘the amount or value of any money or property involved’:- ‘This is an objective test of the importance of the transaction and strongly influences the responsibility factor: see paragraph (ii) above. In the present case it is, without doubt, the weightiest single factor. However, I should utter a word of warning. In taking account of high values, while it is right in principle to apply a value factor, this factor will vary according to the particular circumstances, and it should be remembered that the burden of responsibility on the solicitor does not increase in direct proportion to the value. The effect of increased value is regressive and the rate of regression increases with the value. Furthermore, it is a matter of broad bands of value, rather than precision. Others might select different bands, but I and the assessors would suggest that, in the light of the current value of money, the divisions between the higher bands might be taken as being at andpound;.25m.; andpound;1 m.; andpound;2.5 m.; andpound;5 m. and andpound;10m. Finer tuning can be achieved by considering whether the value is at the bottom, the middle or the top of the relevant band, and there could be even more refined categorisation, if it was thought appropriate. But the essence of the approach is that it involves classification and not enumeration.’

Judges:

Donaldson J

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 1504

Statutes:

Solicitors Remuneration Order 1972

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

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187173