Category: Costs

Times Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others: SC 11 Apr 2017

Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 33

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Access to Justice Act 1999, Crime and Courts Act 2013

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 19-Dec-2013
The claimant policeman alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant newspaper. The defendant advanced two substantive defences, a defence of public interest (Reynolds) privilege and justification. After protracted litigation, the . .
Cited – Callery v Gray (1) and (2) HL 27-Jun-2002
Success fees and ATE premiums were recoverable
Objection was made to a claimed uplift of 20% sought by the plaintiff’s solicitors. The defendant’s insurers said that there had been little at risk for them.
Held: The system of conditional fees insurance had been introduced to remedy defects . .
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 – 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 . .
Appeal from – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 5-Feb-2016
. .
Appeal from – 8 Representative Claimants and Others v MGN Ltd ChD 19-Apr-2016
Application about costs which raises an important point about the applicability of normal conditional fee agreement provisions to privacy litigation generally. Although the application has technically been made by the claimants, the real point which . .
Cited – Callery v Gray (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2001
A plaintiff could recover the costs of insuring himself against the risk of having to pay the other sides costs, and finding his own costs irrecoverable (after the event or ATE insurance). The earlier case had decided that such premiums may be . .
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 – Pine Valley Developments Ltd And Others v Ireland ECHR 29-Nov-1991
ECHR Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; No violation of Art. 13; Just . .
Cited – Pressos Compania Naviera S A And Others v Belgium ECHR 20-Nov-1995
When determining whether a claimant has possessions or property within the meaning of Article I the court may have regard to national law and will generally do so unless the national law is incompatible with the object and purpose of Article 1. Any . .
Cited – Stretch v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The claimant had taken a lease of property from a local authority. Relying upon an option for renewal, he invested substantially in the property, but it was then decided that the option was ultra vires.
Held: Property rights protected under . .
Appeal from – Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood CA 4-Dec-2014
The newspaper appealed from the award of costs to the claimant who had succeeded in his claim of defamation. . .
Cited – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
Cited – Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway ECHR 20-May-1999
A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581649

Minton Morrill Solicitors, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor: Admn 24 Mar 2017

The court was asked whether the Legal Aid Agency was right to refuse to allow payments claimed by the claimant solicitors for work done on certain applications to the European Court of Human Rights.

Judges:

Kerr J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 612 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581615

Lyons v Fox Williams Llp: QBD 23 Mar 2017

The claimant sought damages alleging that her claim for personal injuries and under an insurance policy had been badly handled. Having lost her claim in substance, the court now considered costs.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 532 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Costs

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581314

Demouilpied v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust: Misc 4 Nov 2016

‘two appeals against decisions made by district judges, both of which relate to block-rated after the event (‘ATE’) insurance premiums. The issue which I have to decide is whether the district judges erred in their approach to their assessment of the ATE premiums applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.’

Judges:

Smith HHJ

Citations:

[2016] EW Misc B40 (CC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581142

Myatt, Ellis, Edwards, Rodger v National Coal Board: SCCO 12 Aug 2005

Judges:

Master Wright Costs Judge

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 90012 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Costs

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.236154

Hewson v Wells and Others: ChD 26 Aug 2020

Whether the court should exercise its power under CPR 38.6 to disapply the default rule that the claimant, having filed a notice of discontinuance in respect of parts of her claim, should pay the defendants’ costs of those parts.

Judges:

Clark M

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2722 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.655008

Computer Machinery v Drescher: ChD 1983

Sir Robert Megarry VC said: ‘For reasons that will appear, I think that I should pause in my recital of the facts in order to say something about these two cases. For a long while it has been settled law that if letters written ‘without prejudice’ do not result in an agreement, they cannot be looked at by the court even on the question of costs, unless both parties consent: see, for example, Walker v. Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335; Stotesbury v. Turner (1943) KB 370. Thus if in ‘without prejudice’ correspondence a defendant offers less than the plaintiff is claiming but more than the plaintiff ultimately recovers at the trial, the defendant cannot use his offer in support of a contention that the plaintiff should receive no costs for the period subsequent to the offer. If the claim is purely a money claim, this causes no difficulty: the defendant may pay into court under RSC Ord. 22 the sum that he is offering, and although knowledge of this will be withheld from the court until both liability and quantum have been decided, the fact of payment in is admissible, and usually highly relevant, in deciding what order for costs should be made. If, however, the claim is not solely a money claim, but some other relief is sought, such as an injunction, there was formerly no comparable procedure. What was needed was some procedure whereby the defendant could make an offer to submit to an injunction, give an undertaking or afford other relief on the footing that the offer would be without prejudice until the case was decided but with prejudice when it came to costs.
It was a procedure of this type which was suggested by Cairns L.J. in Calderbank v. Calderbank (1975) 3 A.E.R. 333 at 342, (1976) Fam. 93 at 105-106 and was acted on in McDonnell v. McDonnell (1977) 1 A.E.R. 766 at 770, (1977) 1 W.L.R. 34 at 38. These were both matrimonial appeals from the Family Division, however, and there has been some uncertainty whether the procedure applies to other cases. Thus 17 Halsbury’s Laws (4th edn) para 213 cites Calderbank v. Calderbank for the proposition that ‘in matrimonial proceedings relating to finance’ a party may make this type of offer, and the 1983 cumulative supplement leaves it there. Nor do the cases appear to have been given the prominence which they deserve. Thus leading books which discuss offers made ‘without prejudice’ still leave unamended statements based on Walker v. Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335, without any mention of either Calderbank or McDonnell: see, for example, Phipson on Evidence (13th edn, 1982) p. 374; Cross on Evidence (5th edn, 1979) p. 301. Nor are the cases mentioned in The Supreme Court Practice 1982.’
and
‘In my view, the principle in question is one of perfectly general application which is in no way confined to matrimonial cases. Whether an offer is made ‘without prejudice’ or ‘without prejudice save as to costs’, the courts ought to enforce the terms on which the offer was made as tending to encourage compromise and shorten litigation; and the latter form of offer has the added advantage of preventing the offer from being inadmissible on costs, thereby assisting the court towards justice in making the order as to costs. I should say at once that no point on this arises for decision, as the parties have very sensibly acted on this footing. What I have been saying is as obiter as what Cairns L.J. said (and Scarman L.J. and Sir Gordon Willmer concurred with) in Calderbank v. Calderbank; but I hope that the attention of the profession (including authors and editors) will be more generally directed to what seems to me to be a valuable procedural process that is too little used.’

Judges:

Sir Robert Megarry VC

Citations:

[1983] 3 All ER 153

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cutts v Head and Another CA 7-Dec-1983
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.254333

Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Builders Ltd: CA 1921

The plaintiff successfully sued his employers for wrongful dismissal. The defendant argued it should not pay costs since it was the plaintiff’s union who had retained the solicitors in the case, and it was the union to which the solicitors looked for payment of their costs.
Held: The argument was rejected. Bankes LJ said: ‘When once it is established that the solicitors were acting for the plaintiff with his knowledge and assent, it seems to me that he became liable to the solicitors for costs, and that liability would not be excluded merely because the union also undertook to pay the costs. It is necessary to go a step further and prove that there was a bargain, either between the union and the solicitors, or between the plaintiff and the solicitors, that under no circumstances was the plaintiff to be liable for costs.’
Atkin LJ said: ‘I think that it is highly probably, though the matter has not been discussed, that the solicitors have a personal right against the trade union to receive a proper remuneration for their services. It has not been discussed, and we do not know the precise terms of the relation between the trade union and the solicitors, but I assume there exists such an obligation. Nevertheless there is nothing inconsistent in that obligation co-existing with an obligation on the part of the plaintiff to remunerate the solicitors. Naturally, as a matter of business, the solicitors would, I have no doubt, apply in the first instance to the trade union, as being the persons ultimately liable to pay the costs as between all arties – that is to say, the persons who would have to indemnify the plaintiff against the costs. But that does not exclude the liability of the member, and it seems to me not in the least to affect the position that the client may be liable, although there may be a third person to indemnify the client.’

Judges:

Bankes LJ, Atkin LJ

Citations:

[1921] 1 KB 495

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bee v Jenson ComC 21-Dec-2006
The defendant objected to paying the plaintiff the costs of a replacement hire car after the accident for which he was liable. He said that the plaintiff was in any event insured to recover that cost, and the insurance company were subrogated to the . .
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 14-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the success of a sale by a mortgagee in possession of various properties. The parties disputed the apportionment of costs.
Held: The appeal failed. Where there is no express agreement concerning the division of costs, a . .
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: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.247997

Richard Buxton (Solicitors) v Mills-Owens and Another: CA 23 Feb 2010

The solicitors felt that the instructions received from their client were to pursue points which neither they nor counsel thought were properly arguable. They withdrew from the case, and now appealed against a refusal of their costs on the basis that they having once accepted a retainer a solicitor could not withdraw.
Held: The appeal succeeded. At common law, a solicitor may terminate his retainer before the end of a case on reasonable notice and if he has a ‘reasonable ground for refusing to act further for the client’. The common law rule that a solicitor is entitled to be paid for all the work he has done prior to termination if he terminates for good reason has been law for almost 200 years.
The solicitors had good reason for withdrawing from a case where they were instructed to put forward a case he believed was ‘bound to fail’. ‘if an advocate considers that a point is properly arguable, he should argue it without reservation. If he does not consider it to be properly arguable, he should refuse to argue it. He should not advance a submission but signal to the judge that he thinks that it is weak or hopeless by using the coded language ‘I am instructed that’. Such coded language is well understood as conveying that the advocate expects it to be rejected. In my judgment, such language should be avoided.’

Judges:

Dyson LJ, Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 122, [2010] WLR (D) 49, [2010] 17 EG 96, [2010] 3 Costs LR 421, [2010] CP Rep 26, [2010] 1 WLR 1997, [2010] 9 EG 166

Links:

Bailii, Times, WLRD

Statutes:

Solicitors’ Practice Rules 1990 812.12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Underwood, Son and Piper v Lewis CA 11-May-1894
Solicitors had declined to continue to act for their client before the litigation in which they were acting had been completed. They brought an action for the amount of their bill of costs for work done to date. The trial judge held that a solicitor . .
Appeal From – Richard Buxton (Solicitors) v Mills-Owens QBD 28-Jul-2008
The solicitors appealed against refusal of their costs. They had begun to act but withdrawn part way through the case. The costs judge had said that they had been wrong to do so. Though the client’s instructions would be disastrous, they were not . .
Cited – Vansandau and Brown v Browne 24-Nov-1832
An attorney is not compelled to proceed to the end of a suit in order to be entitled to his costs, but may, upon reasonable cause and reasonable notice, abandon the conduct of the suit, and in such case may recover his costs for the period during . .
Cited – Cresswell v Byron 24-Dec-1807
A Solicitor, having declined to act for his client, has no lien for his costs upon a fund in Court. In this cause a petition was presented by a Solicitor; stating, that in 1789 he was employed as Solicitor for the Plaintiff ; and continued so to act . .
Cited – Skjevesland v Geveran Trading Co Ltd CA 30-Oct-2002
The debtor’s wife was personally acquainted with counsel for the petitioner in his bankruptcy examination. He sought that it be set aside.
Held: Whereas a judge had a duty to be independent of the parties, no such duty fell on counsel. A court . .

Cited by:

Cited – French v Carter Lemon Camerons Llp CA 3-Sep-2012
The appellant had instructed the defendant solicitors in litigation. On beginning to act in person she sought an order to require the solicitors to deliver the case papers to her. They asserted a lien on them until their account was paid. She now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.401678

Fourie v Le Roux and others: HL 24 Jan 2007

The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for want of jurisdiction, because it had not been ancillary to any proceedings which had even been formulated let alone commenced. He now appealed refusal by the Court of Appeal to re-instate it.
Held: Provided the court has in personam jurisdiction over the person against whom an injunction, whether interlocutory or final, is sought, the court has jurisdiction, in the strict sense, to grant it. Section 25 of the 1982 Act allowed courts to grant injunctions in support of foreign proceedings. However at the time when the order had been made, the circumstances required to support it did not exist since any claim it was intended to support had not been formulated: ‘An interlocutory injunction, like any other interim order, is intended to be of temporary duration, dependent on the institution and progress of some proceedings for substantive relief’ (Lord Scott). In essence the case was now about the award of costs on an indemnity basis.
Lord Scott considered the ambiguous nature of the word ‘jurisdiction’, as it had appeared in the case: ‘The references to jurisdiction made both by Sir Andrew Morritt V-C and by the deputy judge . . read as though they had in mind jurisdiction in the strict sense. If they did, then I think they were wrong. It seems to me clear that Park J had jurisdiction, in the strict sense, to grant an injunction against Mr Le Roux and Fintrade. Both were within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at the time the freezing order was made. Both were, shortly after the freezing order had been made, served with an originating summons in which relief in the form of the freezing order was sought. There is no challenge to the propriety or the efficacy of the service on them. The power of a judge sitting in the High Court to grant an injunction against a party to proceedings properly served is confirmed by, but does not derive from, s37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and its statutory predecessors. It derives from the pre-Judicature Act 1873 powers of the Chancery courts, and other courts, to grant injunctions (see s16 of the 1873 Act and s19(2)(b) of the 1981 Act). The issue is, in my opinion, not whether Park J had jurisdiction, in the strict sense, to make the freezing order but whether it was proper, in the circumstances as they stood at the time he made the order, for him to make it. This question does not in the least involve a review of the area of discretion available to any judge who is asked to grant injunctive relief. It involves an examination of the restrictions and limitations which have been placed by a combination of judicial precedent and rules of court on the circumstances in which the injunctive relief in question can properly be granted. The various matters taken into account by the deputy judge and Sir Andrew Morritt V-C respectively in holding that Park J had no jurisdiction to make the freezing order were really, in my respectful opinion, their reasons for concluding that, in the circumstances as they stood when the matter was before him, it had not been proper for Park J to have made the order. That, in my opinion, is the real issue.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 1, Times 25-Jan-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 320, [2007] 1 All ER 1087, [2007] Bus LR 925

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first Instance – Fourie v Le Roux and Others ChD 30-Sep-2004
Interim asset freezing injunctions had been obtained on the application of a liquidator in South Africa. The defendant applied for their discharge.
Held: They should be discharged. No foreign proceedings had been specified for which they were . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Siporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities 1986
The court should not absolve a defaulting party from the consequences of its neglect by maintaining a Mareva injunction order in force. . .
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 . .
Cited – Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Hannay and Co CA 1915
A claimant does not need to have a subsisting cause of action against a defendant before the court will grant a claimant a declaration. The court considered the ambiguity in the meaning of the word ‘jurisdiction’: ‘The first and, in my opinion, the . .
Cited – Garthwaite v Garthwaite CA 1964
The court discussed what was constitutive jurisdiction: ‘The ‘jurisdiction’ of a validly constituted court connotes the limits which are imposed upon its power to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process . .
Cited – Karl Construction Limited v Palisade Properties Plc SCS 14-Jan-2002
The maintenance of procedural safeguards is necessary if the use of the Mareva injunction procedure is not to be held to be incompatible with article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. . .
Cited – Edge and others v Pensions Ombudsman and Another CA 29-Jul-1999
The Pensions Ombudsman was wrong to set aside the decision of pensions trustees where that decision was properly made within the scope of a discretion given to the Trustees. He should not carry out an investigation where no particular benefit could . .
Cited – Castanho v Brown and Root (UK) Ltd HL 1981
A claim was made for an anti-suit injunction.
Held: The court is reluctant to make orders which would be ineffective to achieve what they set out to do, but the fear that the defendant will not obey an injunction is not a bar to its grant. The . .
Cited – Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and Others HL 17-Feb-1993
The court has the power to stay an action which pursued a remedy which was outside the terms of the arbitration agreement determining the dispute. The contract between the parties provided for disputes to be settled by arbitration in Belgium. The . .
Cited – Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The House was asked whether an asylum applicant whose original application was determined in Scotland, but his application for leave to appeal rejected in London, should apply to challenge those decisions in London or in Scotland.
Held: Such . .
Affirmed – Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed . .
Cited – North London Railway Co v The Great Northern Railway Co CA 9-Jun-1883
The Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-S. 8, has given no power to the High Court to issue an injunction in a case in which no Court before that Act had power to give any remedy whatever.
Therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue an . .
Cited – British Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited HL 1985
The plaintiffs tried to restrain the defendant from pursuing an action in the US courts claiming that the plaintiffs had acted together in an unlawful conspiracy to undermine the defendant’s business.
Held: The action in the US were unlawful . .
Cited – South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV HL 1987
There can be little basis for the grant of relief to a landowner providing protection from an action in nuisance if the landowner will not himself remedy the public nuisance. The House considered whether the circumstances gave the court power to . .
Cited – Mercedes Benz Ag v Leiduck PC 24-Jul-1995
Mareva relief is not available against a foreigner outside the UK in order to support a court action abroad. A Mareva injunction is not itself a substantive relief and so was not available to support foreign proceedings. A freezing order has to be . .
Cited – Memory Corporation v Sidhu (No 2) CA 3-Dec-1999
Where a party applied to court for an ex parte order, counsel had direct duties to the court, and also the supporting legal team and clients had continuing and overlapping duties. There was little to be gained by trying to analyze these things too . .

Cited by:

Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Cited – Coventry City Council v PGO and Others CA 22-Jun-2011
The children had been placed with short term fosterers. On adopters being found, the fosterers themselves applied to adopt the children. The court was asked whether a county court judge had power to injunct the authority not to remove the children . .
Cited – SRJ v Person(s) Unknown (Author and Commenters of Internet Blogs) QBD 10-Jul-2014
The claimant sought an order for the disclosure by his solicitor of the identity of the author of an internet blog publishing critical material which, the claimant said, was its confidential information. The defendant’s solicitor had failed to . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.248200

Re Southbourne Sheet Metal Co Ltd: CA 9 Sep 1992

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had sought orders of disqualification against the director and a co-director under the provisions of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Secretary of State’s summons was supported by an affidavit from one of the receivers of the company.
Held: The director’s appeal succeeded. A discontinuance by the DTI led to a standard order for costs against the discontinuer.

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Gazette 09-Sep-1992, [1993] 1 WLR 244, [1993] BCLC 135

Statutes:

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, Insolvent Companies (Disqualification of Unfit Directors) Proceedings Rules 1987 (SI 1987 No.2023) 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Elgindata Ltd (2) CA 15-Jul-1992
A successful plaintiff who had not been shown to have behaved improperly or unreasonably was not to have his costs reduced or be ordered to pay any part of his opponents costs for having pursued some unsuccessful points.
Nourse LJ said that . .

Cited by:

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

Company, Costs

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.85883

Ellingsen v Det Skandinaviske Compani: CA 1919

The court considered an apportionment of the legal costs as between the parties.
Held: On the authorities, each client was only liable to the solicitors for half of the costs of the joint items of defence and the whole of any separate items of defence: ‘If there has been a joint contract between the solicitor and his clients, each client is liable for the whole costs; and if there were separate contracts, each will be liable for his own portion of them; . . the fact that after separate retainers the defence is conducted jointly does not make the liability joint.’

Citations:

[1919] 2 KB 567

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Korner v Korner and Co CA 1951
It was submitted by the receiving parties (being 7 out of 8 defendants) that they should receive an equal portion of the total costs of the defendants by number, that is to say 7/8ths. The taxing master disagreed, permitting each defendant 7/8ths of . .
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 14-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the success of a sale by a mortgagee in possession of various properties. The parties disputed the apportionment of costs.
Held: The appeal failed. Where there is no express agreement concerning the division of costs, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.261317

Re Elgindata Ltd (2): CA 15 Jul 1992

A successful plaintiff who had not been shown to have behaved improperly or unreasonably was not to have his costs reduced or be ordered to pay any part of his opponents costs for having pursued some unsuccessful points.
Nourse LJ said that ‘(i) Costs are in the discretion of the court. (ii) They should follow the event, except when it appears to the court that in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made. (iii) The general rule does not cease to apply simply because the successful party raises issues or makes allegations on which he fails, but where that has caused a significant increase in the length or cost of the proceedings he may be deprived of the whole or a part of his costs.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jul-1992, Times 18-Jun-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 1207, [1993] 1 All ER 232, [1993] BCLC 119

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – In re Elgindata Ltd ChD 1991
The plaintiff obtained a patent which was then to be utilised through the company, of which the plaintiff had one third shares. He later complained that the majority shareholder had acted prejudicially.
Held: Mismanagement could amount to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Amber v Stacey CA 15-Nov-2000
The defendant challenged an order that he should pay the plaintiff’s costs, having made an offer in correspondence which was not accepted.
Held: The claimant had exaggerated his claim, but the defendant’s offer had been inadequate. The judge’s . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others CA 16-Dec-2004
Following its earlier main judgment in the case, the court made use of the CPR to award costs on an appeal. The overall result had been that the patent was found to be valid but not infringed. There had been huge costs. Smithkline sought costs on an . .
Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Cited – Re Southbourne Sheet Metal Co Ltd CA 9-Sep-1992
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had sought orders of disqualification against the director and a co-director under the provisions of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Secretary of State’s summons was supported by an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.85760

Holden and Co v Crown Prosecution Service (No 2); Similar Cases: CA 8 Jan 1992

The Civil Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to award Costs from central funds and they should be made in favour of successful applicants against wasted costs orders in criminal proceedings.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jan-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 407, [1992] 2 All ER 642

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Holden and Co v Crown Prosecution Service (No 2); Steel Ford and Newton v Crown Prosecution Service and Another (No 2) HL 14-Jul-1993
The Court of Appeal had set aside wasted costs orders made in the Crown Court against four different firms of solicitors.
Held: The House set aside the orders but was unable to award to the firms their costs of the successful appeals. There is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 25 February 2022; Ref: scu.81434

Easter, Regina (on The Application of) v Mid-Suffolk District Council and Another: CA 27 Oct 2020

Appeal against a costs order requiring the Interested Party, Debenham Antiques Limited, to pay the costs of the Claimant from 5 February 2019, which was part way through proceedings for judicial review in the Administrative Court brought by her against the local planning authority, Mid-Suffolk District Council.

Judges:

Lord Justice Singh

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.655180

Thompson (A Child) v Bradford: SCCO 30 Oct 2006

The short but important issue for decision in this case is the date from which the three month period for making an application that the Legal Services Commission should pay the costs of a successful non-legally aided opponent, specified in Section 11(1), of The Access to Justice Act 1999 pursuant to Regulation 10(2) of the Community Legal Services (Costs) Regulations 2000, runs. In short, does the three month time limit run from the date when the order is pronounced by the Court of Appeal, or by the necessarily later date upon which it is entered?

Judges:

Master Rogers

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 90065 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, legal Aid

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.443625

Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others: ChD 14 Nov 2007

The parties disputed the success of a sale by a mortgagee in possession of various properties. The parties disputed the apportionment of costs.
Held: The appeal failed. Where there is no express agreement concerning the division of costs, a general rule of thumb is to divide them equally between the relevant parties. But that is only a general rule and is not to be allowed to produce injustice. Where costs can be shown to be attributable to one party rather than another, the liability falls only on that party. And where the real contest is between one party A and another party B, injustice could arise if that were not recognised in the way in which the costs of B and other parties employing the same solicitor are apportioned. The judge in this case had made a factual determination in favour of an equal apportionment.
The court considered the proper approach to the costs when calling a solicitor to give evidence as a witness of fact. Warren J set out the three tasks of a solicitor who was also a witness as: (a) assistance and general preparation on the case as a solicitor, (b) producing the witness statement, and (c) cost of attendance at court. The costs incurred in relation to (a) and (c) are, in principle allowable. He continued: ‘As to (b), the position is more complex. There are, at least in theory, two components of the work involved in producing the witness statement. This can be illustrated by considering the position had Mr Hawkins not been involved, in his capacity as a practising solicitor, in preparing the witness statement but had, instead, been treated in the same way by the legal team as any other witness of fact. In that case, Mr Hawkins would have needed to spend time and effort (including, possibly, being proofed) in producing for the legal team the material for them to turn into the witness statement. The cost attributable to first component, the work done by Mr Hawkins, would not be allowable (any more than it would be allowable in the case of any other witness of fact); the cost attributable to the second component, the work done by the legal team, would be allowable.’

Judges:

Warren J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2635 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 104

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ellingsen v Det Skandinaviske Compani CA 1919
The court considered an apportionment of the legal costs as between the parties.
Held: On the authorities, each client was only liable to the solicitors for half of the costs of the joint items of defence and the whole of any separate items of . .
Cited – Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Builders Ltd CA 1921
The plaintiff successfully sued his employers for wrongful dismissal. The defendant argued it should not pay costs since it was the plaintiff’s union who had retained the solicitors in the case, and it was the union to which the solicitors looked . .
Cited – Dyson Technology Ltd v Strutt ChD 24-Jul-2007
. .
Cited – Russell Young and Co (A Firm) v Brown and others CA 31-Jan-2007
The court was asked to consider the liability of a tortfeasor to a claimant for a share of those costs which have been incurred by the claimant’s solicitor in investigating and settling a large number of claims of a similar nature, and which have . .
Cited – Korner v Korner and Co CA 1951
It was submitted by the receiving parties (being 7 out of 8 defendants) that they should receive an equal portion of the total costs of the defendants by number, that is to say 7/8ths. The taxing master disagreed, permitting each defendant 7/8ths of . .
Cited – Regina v Miller and Glennie; Miller v- Glennie 1983
The question was whether or not the litigants had incurred liability for costs in cases in which they had been supported by their employer.
Held: Where the solicitor is on the record for the client in the litigation, there is a rebuttable . .
See Also – Meretz Investments Nv v ACP Ltd QBD 27-May-2002
Meretz sued ACP for monies alleged to be due under agreements. . .
Cited – Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council CA 31-Jul-2006
The Court considered the validity of after the event legal expenses insurance and conditional fee agreements schemes, and in particular whether an ATE premium was recoverable by a successful claimant. The damages had been agreed in the sum of pounds . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kris Motor Spares Ltd v Fox Williams Llp QBD 12-May-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the After the Event Insurance (ATE) bought by its solicitors late in the day in their claim, before then withdrawing the conditional fee agreement. The premium was over andpound;90,000.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Appeal from – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others CA 11-Dec-2007
The claimant alleged that when exercising its power of sale under a mortgage over its land, the mortgagee had done so in order to override the claimant’s intention of granting a sub-lease, and that this was a tortious intention to induce a breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.261306

Regina (Ministry of Defence) v Wiltshire and Swindon Coroner: QBD 19 Apr 2005

The applicant sought an order requiring the Coroner to provide a digitised recording of his summing up in an inquest regarding deaths at its facility at Porton.
Held: It should not be necessary for the claimant to set out just precisely which part of the summing up was of concern, provided the other party knew what were the relevant allegations. Since the Coroner, if he acted properly and reasonably, would be indemnified by his local authority, he would not be entitled to a protective costs order.
There was ‘no reason in principle why a protective costs order should not in an appropriate case extend to protect the position of a defendant’, but such an order would be ‘unusual and no doubt exceedingly rare’.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 05-May-2005, [2005] EWHC 889 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 134

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator and Others Admn 18-Feb-2011
The council appealed after parking adjudicators allowed four appeals where the council had imposed a surcharge on the payment of civil parking penalties where payment was made by credit card. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Costs

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.224881

Robinson-Tait and Another v Cataldo and Another: SCCO 5 May 2010

Two applications made by the First Claimant in these proceedings for relief against sanctions. Both applications relate to the Claimants’ solicitor’s failure to comply fully with the Costs Practice Direction requirements as to the giving of a Notice of Funding regarding an after-the-event (‘ATE’) insurance premium and regarding certain conditional fee agreements (‘CFAs’) with success fees.

Judges:

Master O’Hare

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 90166 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.416591

JSC Bta Bank v Ablyazov and Others: ComC 29 Jul 2011

Application by Mr Ablyazov and Mr Solodchenko for an order that the claimant should provide security for the costs of Mr Ablyazov and Mr Solodchenko in defending five actions which have been brought against them and others by the BTA Bank.

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2500 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.578051

Medac Gesellschafte Fur Klinische Spezialpraparate Gmbh v Star Pharmaceutical Ltd (4063 (Ch)): ChD 21 Oct 2015

Application to revise costs budget.

Judges:

Clark M

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 4063 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Medac Gesellschafte Fur Klinische Spezialpraparate Gmbh v Star Pharmaceutical Ltd (B31 (Ch)) ChD 21-Oct-2015
Application to revise costs budget. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.577829

Merrix v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 24 Feb 2017

Appeal raising a point of considerable importance arising out of the interplay between the costs budgeting regime under Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the detailed costs assessment regime under Part 47 of the CPR. The Costs Judge when granting permission said this: ‘The issue is the subject of significant debate in the legal profession with wide-ranging views and interpretations. There is no direct case authority on the point. An authority on the point would be highly desirable and as a matter of urgency. Already a number of detailed assessments have been adjourned pending this first instance decision.’ The case having been setled, the court was asked: ‘To what extent, if at all, does the costs budgeting regime under CPR Part 3 fetter the powers and discretion of the costs judge at a detailed assessment of costs under CPR Part 47?’

Judges:

Carr DBE J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 346 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.577506

HM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp: UTTC 22 Mar 2013

UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying with a direction for preparation of hearing bundles – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules – rule 2 (overriding objective) – rule 5 (case management powers) – rule 10 (orders for costs)
Sales J said: ‘When construing a consolidating statute, which is intended to operate as a coherent code or scheme governing some subject matter, the principal inference as to the intention of Parliament is that it should be construed as a single integrated body of law, without any need for reference back to the same provisions as they appeared in earlier legislative versions. . . An important part of the objective of a consolidating statute or a project like the Tax Law Rewrite Project is to gather disparate provisions into a single, easily accessible code. That objective would be undermined if, in order to interpret the consolidating legislation, there was a constant need to refer back to the previous disparate provisions and construe them . . ‘

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 1041 (TCC)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs SCIT 17-Feb-2009
SCIT Closure notice – application for direction to close enquiry into tax return – limited liability partnership – s 28B Taxes Management Act 1970 – direction for closure within three months . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No. 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Sep-2010
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Applications by the parties for further directions – whether departure by HMRC unilaterally from the timetable for preparation for the appeal set down in agreed directions, causing additional . .
Appeal from – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Jun-2011
FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 20-Apr-2012
FTTTx Income tax – limited liability partnership acquired licence to film rights and sub-licensed rights to distributor – complex financing arrangements involving loans to members of the partnership and . .

Cited by:

See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs CA 26-Feb-2014
The court was asked whether the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) had jurisdiction to make an order that the costs of preparing hearing bundles for a substantive appeal by the appellant taxpayer should be shared equally between the taxpayer and the . .
At UTTC – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v HM Revenue and Customs CA 17-Feb-2015
Appeal against closure notice. . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners (No 35) Llp v HMRC UTTC 20-Dec-2013
UTTC Carrying on a trade – Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 – R(Jones) v First-tier Tribunal [2013] UKSC 19 – business involving the exploitation of films with a view to profit – section 609 ITTOIA . .
At UTTC – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The issue raised on this appeal concerns the extent to which the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to make an order for costs is fettered by the provisions of the Rules regulating the procedure of the Tribunal.
Held: With one exception, . .
Cited – Derry, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 10-Apr-2019
D bought 500,000 shares in TY 2009/10 for pounds 500,000 in Media Pro Four Ltd. In tax year 2010/11 he sold them to ‘Island House Private Charitable Trust’ for pounds 85,500, realising a loss of pounds 414,500. His 2009/10 tax return claimed share . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.509176

JM v CZ: FD 27 Feb 2014

Judgment on costs, given in circumstances where the substantive dispute between the parties has been compromised by the giving of cross non-molestation undertakings

Judges:

Mr Justice Mostyn

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1125 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.523777

Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd and Another: SCS 17 Jun 2011

The court having assoilzied the defendant in the claim now considered an application for costs.

Judges:

Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 104

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Judgment – Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd SCS 12-Apr-2011
Outer House – The pursuer was liquidator of a Company, suing for declarator that ‘the pretended standard security’ granted by the second defenders in favour of the first defenders in respect of subjects was void and unenforceable; and for production . .

Cited by:

Costs at Outer House – Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited and Another SC 2-Jul-2014
It was said that land, a hotal and gold courses, had been sold at an undervalue and that the transaction was void as against the seller’s liquidator.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The critical issue was whether ‘the alienation was made for . .
Costs at Outer House – Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd and Another SCS 1-Mar-2013
(Extra Division Inner House) The liquidator sought to have set aside the sale of a substantial hotel with golf courses on the basis that it was at an undervalue, with the buyer being aware of the seller’s potential insolvency. He appealed against a . .
Cited – Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited and Another SC 2-Jul-2014
It was said that land, a hotal and gold courses, had been sold at an undervalue and that the transaction was void as against the seller’s liquidator.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The critical issue was whether ‘the alienation was made for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.441326

Lord Chancellor’s Department v Singh: SCCO 29 May 2002

In a graduated fees case the Costs Judge had held that (see [2001] 2 Costs LR 343), by virtue of paragraph 23 in Part 5 of Schedule 3 to the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (Costs) Regulations 1989, junior counsel in a criminal case, where he is led by a QC, is entitled to half his Leader’s fees across the board and not merely half the Leader’s fees in respect of work where both appeared or did the work.
The Lord Chancellor’s Department appealed the decision and Mrs Justice Rafferty reversed the Costs Judge, holding that paragraph 23 did not apply to the fixed fees falling within Part 4 of the schedule. The reference to a ‘junior advocate’ was a reference to an advocate who was led by another, not a reference to the status of a barrister who was not a QC. Accordingly, the respondent was only entitled to the fees laid down in the Table in Part 4, that is the fees for junior counsel alone.

Judges:

Mrs Justice Rafferty (Sitting Without Assessors)

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 9027 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.235588

TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons and Others: ChD 25 Feb 2020

‘whether, in circumstances where a court is minded to order a claimant to provide security for costs, as the price for that order, a defendant should be required to provide an undertaking in damages to hold the claimant harmless against the costs or loss caused by the order requiring the claimant to provide security.’

Judges:

Marcus Smith J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2681 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.655186

Stocker v Stocker: QBD 10 Jun 2015

The claimant alleged defamation by his former wife in a post on facebook. The posting and associatedeEmails were said falsely to have accused him of serious abuse, and that the accusations had undermined his relationship with his new partner.
Held: However unappealing it may be to contemplate these issues being resolved via a defamation trial, it cannot possibly be said in my judgment that paragraph 15.13 discloses no reasonable ground of defence.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1634 (QB), [2015] 4 Costs LR 651, [2015] EMLR 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Davy v Garrett 1878
It is not sufficient in pleadings to allege facts from which fraud might be inferred but which are also consistent with innocence.
Thesiger LJ said: ‘Fraudulent conduct must be distinctly alleged and distinctly proved, and it [is] not . .
Cited – Armitage v Nurse; etc CA 19-Mar-1997
A clause in a trust deed may validly excuse trustees from personal liability for even gross negligence. The trustee was exempted from liability for loss or damage ‘unless such loss or damage shall be caused by his own actual fraud’.
Held: The . .
Cited – Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc v D B Thakerar and Co (a Firm); Ranga and Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited CA 21-Jul-1998
Where an action had been begun on basis of allegations of negligence and breach of trust, new allegations of fraud where quite separate new causes of claim, and went beyond amendments and were disallowed outside the relevant limitation period. . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – Howe and Co v Burden QBD 11-Feb-2004
Defence of consent – no strike out. The precise ambit of the defence of consent in a defamation case is best established at trial on the basis of the tribunal’s findings of fact. . .
Cited – Foley Independent News and Media Ltd and Others v Lord Ashcroft KCMG CA 4-Apr-2012
The defendants in this defamation action appealed against interlocutory orders striking out their defence of justification.
Held: Elias LJ indicated obiter that his ‘strong preliminary view’ was that ‘a pleading of fraud in the context of . .
Cited – Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Foley and Another (No 2) QBD 30-Jul-2012
Eady J considered whether a pleading of fraud in a defamation case should be subject to similar restrictions as to a similar pleading in a torts claim, and ruled that the introduction of the probability test would unduly inhibit the pleading of . .
Cited – Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Com v Al Refai and Others ComC 12-Jun-2013
Andrew Smith J, dismissed a defendant’s application for summary judgment, saying that that it was not fatal to the claim that the claimant could not plead or prove that the defendant caused or authorised publication of ‘the specific defamatory words . .
Cited – Simpson v MGN Ltd and Another QBD 27-Jan-2015
The court had struck out the defendant’s plea of justification. The parties now disputed the costs to be paid for that element of the action, the defendant arguing that the claimant had failed to comply with the requirements to comply with costs . .
Cited – Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 4-Feb-2015
The claimant MP sought damages alleging defamation by the defendant newspaper. The court heard a second case management conference as to amended particulars of claim. . .
Cited – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Namli and Another CA 29-Nov-2011
An application was made to vary a disclosure order. The application raised a question as to the scope of CPR Part 33.6 and the relationship between that provision, Part 31.5(2) and Part 31.19, and the exercise of the powers conferred on the Court by . .
See Also – Stocker v Stocker CA 24-Mar-2015
Application for leave to appeal . .

Cited by:

See Also – Stocker v Stocker QBD 29-Jan-2016
Application on pre-trial review . .
Appeal from – Stocker v Stocker CA 12-Feb-2018
Defamation proceedings after divorce.
Sharp LJ said this about the use of dictionaries as a means of deciding the meaning to be given to a statement alleged to be defamatory: ‘The use of dictionaries does not form part of the process of . .
See Also – Stocker v Stocker SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties had been married and divorced. Mrs S told M S’s new partner on Facebook that he had tried to strangle her and made other allegations. Mrs S now appealed from a finding that she had defamed him. Lord Kerr restated the approach to meaning . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.548007

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4): Admn 22 Nov 2013

The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award.

Judges:

Edwards-Stuart J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3573 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .
Cited – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.518397

Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes Llp and Another: QBD 1 Feb 2017

The LC appealed against a decision that defendant lawyers should be paid for the inspection of documents supplied to them in digital format.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Nicola Davies DBE J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 138 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573798

Barkhuysen v Hamilton: QBD 23 Dec 2016

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3371 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Barkhuysen v Hamilton QBD 10-Nov-2016
Claims had been made between neighbours in the course of a long running neighbour dispute. In particular a claim was made of malicious prosecution as regards a complaint made to the police.
The claimant had ‘amply made out the third and fourth . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573393

Pettigrew and Others v Edwards: ChD 12 Jan 2017

Application for an order that the claimants as trustees of the will of Veronica Ann Edwards deceased (i) have permission to continue to defend a claim brought against in an earlier claim, and to make a counterclaim in that claim, and (ii) be indemnified out of the trust fund in respect of all costs properly incurred by them in connection with the claim and counterclaim. In other words, this is a claim for a Beddoe order (see Re Beddoe [1893] 1 Ch 547) and also for a protective costs order.
Held: Refused. In substantial part the claim was to the personal benefit of the trustees, and neither a Beddoe nor a protective order was necessary.

Judges:

Master Matthews

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 8 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam CA 1893
A trustee had unsuccessfully defended an action against the trust in detinue for the return of deeds. He now sought protection against a costs order. Costs having been awarded against a trustee in proceeding A, the trustee sought to be indemnified . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Wills and Probate

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573206

Loggie v Loggie: FC 27 Jan 2022

Applicant’s application in Form D11 that the respondent do indemnify her in respect of pounds 65,603.60 she owes to her former solicitors.

Judges:

Mr Justice Mostyn

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Costs

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.671623

Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council: EAT 16 Dec 2016

EAT Practice and Procedure: Costs – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Costs
The Employment Tribunal sufficiently explained its reasons for holding that (subject to the question of ability to pay) the Claimant should pay the whole of the Respondents’ costs. However the Employment Tribunal, having decided to take account of the Claimant’s ability to pay and having found that he was impecunious, did not sufficiently explain why it considered that he would have the future earning capacity to pay a Costs Judgment of more than andpound;100,000; and did not explain why it had not considered ordering a proportion of the costs or a capped amount of costs taking account of the Claimant’s ability to pay. Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University [2012] ICR 159 and Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and others [2013] IRLR 713 considered and applied. Appeal allowed on that ground alone. Remitted to same Employment Tribunal.
Note. The Respondent had taken the unusual step of serving a statutory demand on the Claimant as a precursor to bankruptcy proceedings. The Judgment discusses the potential effect of bankruptcy on further litigation brought by the Claimant; and holds that an applicant for costs who argues that the future earning capacity of the paying party should be taken into account ought to inform the Employment Tribunal if there is any intention to serve a statutory demand and commence bankruptcy proceedings in the near future.
Disability
The Employment Judge did not err in law in rejecting the Claimant’s case that he had a disability during a relevant period in 2014. J v DLA Piper UK [2010] ICR 1052 discussed and applied in the context of absence described as ‘stress’ or ‘work related stress’.

David Richardson HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0101 – 16 – 1612, [2016] UKEAT 0100 – 16 – 1612
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Costs

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572674

Medac Gesellschafte Fur Klinische Spezialpraparate Gmbh v Star Pharmaceutical Ltd (B31 (Ch)): ChD 21 Oct 2015

Application to revise costs budget.

Master Clark
[2015] EWHC B31 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Medac Gesellschafte Fur Klinische Spezialpraparate Gmbh v Star Pharmaceutical Ltd (4063 (Ch)) ChD 21-Oct-2015
Application to revise costs budget. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572389

Darroch and Another v Football Association Premier League Ltd: CA 2 Dec 2016

The Claimants had had their appeals against conviction for breaches of the 1988 Act set aside, but now appealed against refusal of their costs of defending the action.

Sir Brian Leveson, P, Hallett, Burnett LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1220
Bailii
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 297
England and Wales

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.572000