Category: Costs

Soll (Vale) v Jaggers: EAT 6 Oct 2017

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Costs – power of EAT to make award of costs in both ET and EAT proceedings
The Respondent had succeeded in its appeal against a finding by the Employment Tribunal that it had unfairly dismissed the Claimant; whilst the question of liability would have needed to be remitted to the ET, the EAT had also substituted a finding that any award made would be nil (applying Polkey), given that the Claimant’s conduct meant that he would inevitably have been summarily dismissed for the charge relating to his falsification of a contractual document for personal gain. The Respondent applied for its costs both before the ET and EAT.

Held: dismissing the applications.
Although the EAT had the power to make an award of costs relating to the ET proceedings and the application had been made in time (time running from the date of the EAT Order, which had finally disposed of the ET proceedings), it was appropriate for the ET to determine the merits of the application and the amount of any award if made.
As for costs before the EAT, it could not be said that the Claimant’s defence of the appeal had been misconceived in all respects. Even if it had been unreasonable to defend the appeal in respect of the Polkey point, there would still have been a hearing on liability; it was unclear what, if any, additional costs arose from the Claimant’s defence of the Polkey aspect of the appeal. In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to make an award of costs in respect of the EAT proceedings.

Citations:

[2017] UKEAT 0218 – 16 – 0610

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601911

W Portsmouth and Company Ltd v Lowin: CA 19 Dec 2017

The Court was asked whether a cap on the amount of costs which can be allowed in respect of the costs of a provisional assessment of costs under CPR rule 47.15(5) applies where the receiving party is awarded costs on the indemnity basis because she has beaten her own Part 36 offer or whether CPR Part 36 entitles the successful receiving party to costs assessed on the indemnity basis without being subject to the cap.

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 2172

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601854

British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors Musicians’ Union and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Another: Admn 17 Jul 2015

Decision as to costs and otherwise following successful application for judicial review.

Judges:

Green J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2041 (Admin), [2015] 4 Costs LR 627

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.550376

Mohammed v The Home Office: QBD 24 Nov 2017

The claimant having received a better settlement of his claim than had been offered by the defendant, he now sought an order under CPR and as to the level of interest payable.

Judges:

Pepperall QC DHCJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3051 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 784

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 36.17(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601108

Ukraine v Yanukovych: ECJ 23 Nov 2017

Appeal Relating Solely To The Amount of The Costs Set At First Instance : Order

Citations:

C-551/17, [2017] EUECJ C-551/17 – CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Ukraine v Yanukovych (Appeal Relating Solely To The Amount of The Costs Set At First Instance : Order) ECJ 23-Nov-2017
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601061

Housesimple Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 22 Nov 2017

PROCEDURE – COSTS – standard category case – withdrawal of appeal before hearing – application for costs by HMRC – whether appellant had acted unreasonably in defending or conducting proceedings by withdrawing the appeal – application for costs by appellant – whether HMRC had acted unreasonably in defending or conducting proceedings by making application for costs – rule 10(1)(b) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – applications refused

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 837 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600957

Premier Motorauctions Ltd and Another v Pricewaterhousecoopers Llp and Another: CA 23 Nov 2017

Extent to which the existence of After-the-Event (‘ATE’) insurance is relevant when the court is considering an application for security for costs sought by the defendants in a claim brought by an insolvent company in liquidation.

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1872

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599609

Allen v Colman Coyle Llp: SCCO 29 Jun 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 90075 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc CA 11-May-2004
The court considered the effect on costs orders of a refusal to take part in alternate dispute resolution procedures. The defendant Trust had refused to take the dispute to a mediation. In neither case had the court ordered or recommended ADR.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.254452

Jones and Another v Congregational and General Insurance plc: QBD 2 May 2003

The claimants had lost their claim on an insurance policy, and had had costs awarded against them subject only to the issue of whether the fact that they had been legally aided protected them.
Held: The applicants had been found to be guilty of fraud, both as to the underlying claim, and in their applications for legal aid. They were accordingly not entitled to the protection which those with a legal aid certificate would normally receive.

Judges:

Chamber QC J

Citations:

Times 07-Jul-2003

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 11(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.184553

Martin v Holland and Barratt Ltd: SCCO 19 Oct 2001

CourtService On the 16th January 1995 the claimant was sitting in a folding chair, working at a computer screen. The chair collapsed. He fell back against the wall injuring his neck and back. On 6th August 1997 Judgment was entered by consent with damages to be assessed. Certain payments into court were made eg pounds 5,4730.79 on 19th March 1998. Counsel advised in conference on 6th April 1998 and settled the Schedule of Damages on 27th May 1998. He claimed pounds 435.00 and pounds 440.00 respectively and was allowed pounds 350.00 on each occasion. On Wednesday 6th October 1998 there was a further payment into court of pounds 21,965.35. The total offer then stood at about pounds 100,000. The trial had been fixed for Wednesday 28th October 1998 for 3 days. On 14th October 1998 there was a conference with the client to advise on the payment into court.
On 15th October 1998 the brief to counsel was prepared and reached counsel the next day. The claimant’s solicitor also wrote to the defendant’s solicitor referring to their claim for some pounds 200,000 (including general damages). The claimant was prepared to settle for pounds 120,000 plus costs. They requested a response within 7 days. At this stage both sides raised issues on discovery and additional documents to go into the trial bundle.
On Friday 16th October the solicitors reached agreement and a draft order was sent to the defendant’s solicitors. The letter confirming the position was sent on the Monday.
The appeal proceeded on the basis that it was necessary to show that the District Judge exceeded the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement was possible. The judgement of Buckley J in Mealing MacLeod -v- The Common Professional Examination Board (Costs Law Report 2000 part 2 at page 224) was relevant.
The appeal concerned two issues raised by the defendant.
(a) Whether the brief fee of counsel claimed at pounds 3,500 + VAT and allowed at pounds 2000 + VAT was reasonable
(b) Whether the fee to the Orthopaedic surgeon claimed at pounds 1,500 and allowed at pounds 1,000 was reasonable.
Counsel’s Fees
Counsel’s fee sheet stated that Counsel was fully prepared. It appeared that the District Judge accepted that statement. She therefore allowed pounds 2,350.00 + VAT for the conference on 14th October and the brief. The Judge and the assessors agreed that a brief fee at pounds 3,500.00 was reasonable if the case had proceeded. Given the proximity of the conference on 14th October and the delivery of the brief on 15th October with the settlement the following day, the court reached the conclusion that the brief fee allowed by the District Judge was too high. It exceeded the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement was possible. The conference should be treated as the conference on the brief. A reasonable discounted brief fee to include the conference and to reflect the early settlement should be pounds 1,500 + VAT. Accordingly a brief fee at pounds 1,150.00 should be allowed.
The Expert’s Fee
The expert’s terms of retainer were that his daily fee would be pounds 1,500. per day. If the case settled more than a month before the trial the fee would be half. Inadvertently the claimant’s solicitor misinformed the defendant’s solicitor that the cancellation fee would be one half if the case settled less than a month before the hearing. The court had no hesitation in upholding the District Judge’s award of pounds 1,000. The judge stressed the importance of good experts being able to make themselves available and to commit themselves to attend court. The expert had written to explain that he has already put in five hours of preparation before being notified of the cancellation. The date for the hearing had been specifically reserved. He explained that he had not been able to reschedule meaningful work for that day. He would have been paid about pounds 2,500 for hip and knee operations.
The judge made no order as to costs except that the defendant paid the barrister assessors costs at pounds 350 inclusive of VAT.
The judge’s comments on the expert’s cancellation fee reflects the judgement of Bingham J (as he then was) in Reynolds v Meston (unreported) 24th February 1986 – see also Butterworths Costs B283.

Judges:

Mr Justice Holland sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 11, [2001] EWHC 9012 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.185951

Howlett v Howlett and Another: CA 30 Oct 2017

This appeal concerns CPR 44.16, which deals (as its heading indicates) with ‘Exceptions to one-way costs shifting where permission required’

Judges:

Lewison, Beatson, Newey LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1696

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 44.16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598464

Agyemang, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Haringey: CA 26 Oct 2017

Appeal by a claimant in judicial review proceedings against a costs order made by Haddon-Cave J on 17 February 2016 following the compromise of the proceedings. The judge made no order for costs. The claimant, who is publicly funded, says that she should have been awarded her costs because she had obtained by agreement substantially all of the relief which she had been seeking in the proceedings.

Judges:

Patten , Aspin LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1630

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598460

Harrison v Eversheds Llp: QBD 24 Oct 2017

The preliminary issue was that the costs payable by him should be limited on the basis of estimates of costs given to him by the Defendant. The estimates were considerably lower than the costs sought.

Judges:

Slade DBE J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2594 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598442

Morley, Regina (on The Application of) v Surrey Heath Borough Council: Admn 20 Jul 2017

Renewed oral application for permission to apply for judicial review, of award of costs on issue of summons for non-payment of council tax.
Held: Rejected. The claimant had misunderstood the workalready done.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2506 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Rating, Costs

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598373

Re Smith and Others: SCCO 23 Oct 2007

These appeals arise from decisions of Costs Officers in respect of work undertaken by Court of Protection Appointed Receivers (and his/her assistants) in relation to the general management of patients’ affairs.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 90088 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.262184

The British Broadcasting Corporation and Another v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another: QBD 5 Feb 2019

Claim by the British Airline Pilots Association for a limited order for costs consequent upon their successful opposition to a disclosure order

Judges:

Edis J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 192 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 2018 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.633236

Smolarek v Tewin Bury Farm Hotel Ltd and Another: EAT 5 Jul 2017

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Costs – Rule 76(1) ET Rules 2013
Having dismissed the Claimant’s claims after a Full Merits Hearing, the ET went on to order that the Claimant pay costs of pounds 5,200 towards the sums incurred by the Respondents (over pounds 29,000). In making that award, the ET had regard to the fact that the Claimant had previously pursued two claims in the ET, which had also included claims of unlawful discrimination, and had faced a previous costs award; in the present case, not only had the Claimant unreasonably pursued claims that had no reasonable prospect of success so as to engage the ET’s costs jurisdiction under Rule 76(1), it was appropriate to make an award of costs in the sum of pounds 5,200, which was set at a level that the Claimant might be expected to be able to pay and also that would cause her to consider carefully before pursuing any further ET claims. Upon the Claimant applying for the ET to reconsider its Judgment, in part because it had wrongly taken into account the need to deter her from pursuing claims when making the costs award, the ET confirmed its earlier decision but said it was merely expressing a hope – not setting out its reason for making the costs award – when it referred to any future deterrence.
The Claimant appealed the original Costs Judgment.
Held: allowing the appeal
The ET’s reasoning expressly stated that, when determining whether it was appropriate to make an award of costs and, if so, as to the level of that award, its award was at least in part informed by reference to what would cause the Claimant to consider carefully whether to bring any future claims (i.e. so as to act as a deterrence). That had been an improper consideration and had thus tainted the ET’s exercise of its judicial discretion. Although the ET had re-visited this issue in its Decision on the reconsideration application, that could not be read as a clarification of its earlier reasoning and it would not be appropriate to seek to make good the error in the original Decision by reference to the Reconsideration Judgment. That said, the Reconsideration Decision did make clear the other bases on which the ET had considered it appropriate to make a costs award in this case and that meant that the real issue was as to the appropriate level of that award absent any consideration of deterrence. In the circumstances that issue would need to be remitted to the ET for further reconsideration.

Judges:

Eady QC HHJ

Citations:

[2017] UKEAT 0031 – 17 – 0507

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593137

Kalma and Others v African Minerals Ltd and Others: QBD 14 Feb 2017

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 226 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Kalma and Others v African Minerals Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jan-2018
A threshold of seriousness was required before the court will undertake a balance of the competing interests to decide whether to make an order for anonymity. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.575246

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 complainant can rely on the presumption in his favour. The defendant must raise a genuine issue as to whether the complainant is liable for his solicitors’ costs before the complainant has to adduce evidence to show that his entitlement. The complainant is presumed to be personally liable for his solicitors’ costs and it should not normally be necessary for the complainant to have to adduce evidence to that effect.
Harrison J said: ‘there is normally a presumption that the complainant will be personally liable for his solicitors’ costs and it should not normally be necessary for the complainant to have to adduce evidence to that effect.’ and
‘Where, however, there is a genuine issue raised by the defendant as to whether the complainant has properly incurred costs in the proceedings, the position will be different. A defendant may, for instance, have grounds for believing that the complainant will not be liable to pay his solicitor’s costs, whether because he has entered into an unlawful and unenforceable conditional fee arrangement with his solicitor or for any other reason. In those circumstances, where the defendant has raised a genuine issue as to whether the complainant has properly incurred costs in the proceedings, the complainant will be at risk if he continues to rely on the presumption that he is liable for his solicitor’s costs. If he does not then adduce evidence to prove that he has properly incurred costs in the proceedings and the defendant can show by evidence or argument, that he has not, he would be most unlikely to succeed in recovering his costs.
The need for a complainant to give evidence to prove his entitlement to costs rather than relying on the presumption in his favour will not, however, arise if the defendant simply puts the complainant to proof of his entitlement to costs. The complainant would be justified in relying on the presumption in his favour. It would be necessary for the defendant to raise a genuine issue as to whether the complainant is liable for his solicitors’ costs before the complainant would be called upon to adduce evidence to show that he is entitled to his costs. It will be for the trial judge to decide whether or not the defendant has raised an issue which calls for proof by the complainant of his liability to costs. Prior notice of the issue to be raised by the defendant should be given to the complainant in sufficient time before the hearing to enable the complainant to deal with it properly at the hearing and to avoid the necessity of an adjournment at the defendant’s expense.’ and
‘the mere non-acceptance by a defendant that an agreement between the complainant and his solicitor is a proper private fee agreement would not of itself be sufficient to call for evidence from the complainant. The defendant must show that there is a genuine reason for believing that it is not a proper private fee agreement before the complainant should need to consider adducing evidence to support the presumption in his favour.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ and Harrison J

Citations:

[2000] 4 All ER 887, [2001] 1 Costs LR 89

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 – 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 . .
Cited – Pepin v Watts and Another CA 26-Jun-2002
Application for permission to appeal out of time (2 years) on an issue in costs. . .
Cited – Pepin v Watts and Another CA 30-Oct-2002
. .
Cited – Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2) CA 28-Nov-2002
The defendant complained that the agreement under which the claimant’s solicitors had continued to act on his behalf, despite any realistic prospect of him ever being able to pay their costs, was a sham, and requested a full hearing to determine . .
Cited – Hollins v Russell CA 25-Jun-2003
The court considered whether a successful party should be refused his costs to the extent of the costs associated with a particular argument they had lost.
Held: In a weighty matter the court should not disallow the costs of arguments which . .
Cited – Ghannouchi v Houni Limited, Ahmed Salhin El-Houni, Al Arab Publishing House Limited SCCO 4-Mar-2004
. .
Cited – Ilangaratne v British Medical Association ChD 9-May-2007
. .
Cited – Gower Chemicals Group Litigation v Gower Chemicals Ltd and Another QBD 17-Apr-2008
. .
Cited – Dranez and others v Hayek and others SCCO 28-Apr-2008
. .
Cited – Tranter v Hansons (Wordsley) Ltd SCCO 18-Jun-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.182520

Newman v Southampton City Council and Others (Costs and PTA): FD 5 Aug 2020

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2148 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Newman v Southampton City Council and Others FD 5-Aug-2020
Application by a professional journalist who seeks a disclosure order which, if granted, will enable her to see the court file and other materials relating to public law care proceedings which concluded in October 2018. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.655288

Stevensdrake Ltd (T/A Stevensdrake Solicitors) v Hunt: CA 31 Jul 2017

SL appeals against a judgment dismissing SL’s claim against SH for its fees under a CFA dated 10 April 2008 for legal services provided in relation to the liquidation of Sunbow Limited, of which SH was the liquidator.

Judges:

Briggs, Hamblen LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1173

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591687

The Kingsbridge Pension Fund Trust v Downs (Costs): UTLC 7 Jul 2017

Costs – appeal against order made by First-tier Tribunal – whether costs of the appeal in the Upper Tribunal to be awarded against the Appellant for unreasonable behaviour in bringing or conducting the appeal – Rule 10(3)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 – basis of assessment

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 284 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 10(3)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591402

Select Car Rentals (North West) Ltd v Esure Services Ltd: QBD 19 Jun 2017

The court considered the extent to which credit hire companies are potentially vulnerable to adverse costs orders in litigation to which they are not a party in the context of the settlement of road traffic accidents.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1434 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Road Traffic

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.588190

J H Shannon v Country Casuals Holdings Plc: QBD 21 May 1997

A witness who was answering a sub poena ad duces tecum, is entitled to his costs incurred in complying with the order over and above just the conduct money. Such an order can lead to real additional costs.

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-1997, Gazette 21-May-1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.89189

Lakhani and Another v Mahmud and Others: ChD 5 Jul 2017

Appeal by the defendants from an order dismissing the defendants’ application for relief from the sanctions provided for by CPR 3.14 in respect of the failure to comply with one of the case management orders relating to the filing of costs budgets

Judges:

Daniel Alexander QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1713 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 455

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589959

Halborg v EMW Law Llp: CA 23 Jun 2017

The Court was asked whether a Limited Liability Partnership (‘LLP’) of solicitors, which is a party to litigation and acts as its own legal representative in the proceedings, is a litigant in person within CPR 46 and so can only recover the level of costs allowed to litigants in person under CPR 46.5(2) and PD46 para. 3.4.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton, MR, Beatson, Underhill LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 793

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 46.5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588322

Hyde v Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust: CA 23 May 2017

Whether conditional fee agreement had become unenforceable due to the concurrency of public legal aid funding and a private retainer.

Judges:

Davis, Lewison, McCombe LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 399, [2017] WLR(D) 362

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 10(1) 22(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584527

Wamala, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 23 May 2017

Appeal against an order refusing the Appellant’s application for costs in judicial review proceedings in which he sought a declaration that his detention had been unlawful and an order for his release, which was in the event compromised before determination.

Judges:

David Richards, Hickinbottom LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 363

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Costs

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584258

The Secretary of State for Justice, The Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors: QBD 11 May 2017

The solicitors representing a defendant had claimed for the costs of examining 1571 pages of electronic materials. The Lord Chancellot now appealed against an order for their payment in the graduated payment scheme.

Judges:

Holroyde J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1045 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 320

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584207

Haworth v Green: SCCO 22 Nov 2002

The Claimant sought damages from the Defendant, a stage hypnotist, who, in the course of a public hypnosis, for which she volunteered, regressed her to the age of eight, thereby reviving memories of childhood abuse which she had suffered causing her considerable distress and putting her marriage under strain. The case was in fact one of a number of cases handled by the same firm of solicitors, and was intended to be the first to come to trial.

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 9036 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.235599

OBG Ltd and Another v Allan and others: CA 21 Feb 2005

The Court reduced the amount of damages owed to the applicants to GBP 244,000 plus interest.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 172

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – OBG Ltd OBG (Plant and Transport Hire) Ltd v Raymond International Ltd; OBG Ltd v Allen CA 9-Feb-2005
The defendants had wrongfully appointed receivers of the claimant, who then came into the business and terminated contracts undertaken by the business. The claimant asserted that their actions amounted to a wrongful interference in their contracts . .

Cited by:

See Also – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
See Also – OBG Ltd And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 13-Nov-2009
Statement of Facts . .
See Also – OBG Ltd And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Nov-2011
Admissibility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs, Damages

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.223232

Chung and Another v Towey (Leasehold Enfranchisement – Costs): UTLC 18 Apr 2017

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – costs – whether purchasing tenants liable to pay freeholder’s valuation fee incurred after application to FTT had been submitted – whether cost incurred in pursuance of tenant’s notice of claim – s.9(4)(e) Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 157 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 9(4)(e)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582126