Category: Costs

Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust: QBD 5 Feb 2014

The court was asked whether, where a party loses mental capacity in the course of proceedings, such loss of capacity has the automatic and immediate effect of terminating their solicitor’s retainer. The Costs judge had held that, as a matter of law, a supervening incapacity even if intermittent, automatically frustrates and thereby terminates a contract of retainer.
Held: The Conditional Fee Agreement remained effective. The termination of a solicitor’s authority by reason of mental incapacity did not, in itself, frustrate the underlying contract of retainer.

Phillips J
[2014] EWHC 168 (QB), [2014] 2 Costs LR 320, (2014) 138 BMLR 30, [2014] 1 WLR 2683, [2014] 2 All ER 1104, [2014] WLR(D) 14
Bailii, WLRD
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 44(6)
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Lauritzen A/A v Wijsmuller BV;( ‘The Super Servant Two’) CA 12-Oct-1989
Bingham LJ discussed the nature of frustration of contract: ‘The essence of frustration is that it is caused by some unforeseen supervening event over which the parties to the contract have no control and for which they are therefore not . .
Cited – Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel and Co HL 12-Dec-1918
The defendant ship-owners contracted to lease the ship on charter to the plaintiffs. Before the term, the ship was requisitioned for the war effort. The plaintiffs did not exercise the contractual right given to them to cancel the charterparty. The . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust CA 27-Jan-2015
This case concerns a claimant with fluctuating capacity to conduct legal proceedings. At a time when she had capacity, she retained a firm of solicitors under a conditional fee agreement. The issue was whether the CFA terminated automatically by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Health, Contract

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521121

Walker Construction (UK) Ltd v Quayside Homes Ltd and Another: CA 7 Feb 2014

Laws, McFarlane, Gloster LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 93, [2014] 1 CLC 121
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Construction

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521054

HE v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 Nov 2013

Appeal against a costs order in an immigration case. The claimant, who is the appellant in judicial review proceedings, asserts that he was substantially successful in his claim and that therefore he ought to have recovered the costs of the action. The claimant says that the judge erred in principle in only awarding him a small proportion of those costs.

Jackson, Black LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1846
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs, Immigration

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521063

Tasleem v Beverley: CA 6 Nov 2013

The court was asked: ‘whether the court can award a claimant its costs of what are known as costs-only proceedings brought under CPR Part 8 in accordance with the procedure set out in CPR rule 44.12A where a default costs certificate has been obtained, as the claimants contend; or is a claimant in those circumstances limited to the amount of the costs specified in the default costs certificate, as the respondents contend? Is the default costs certificate the end of the matter, in other words.’

[2013] EWCA Civ 1805, [2014] CP Rep 25, [2014] 1 WLR 3567, [2014] WLR(D) 106, [2014] 4 Costs LO 551
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521065

Belgian Grain and Produce Co Ltd v Cox and Co (France) Ltd: CA 1919

Although the Court had jurisdiction, ‘it ought to be exercised with great caution, which indicates that there must be something exceptional in the facts to justify the making of the order’.

Bankes, LJ Warrington and Scrutton, Ljj
[1919] WN 317
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Nykredit Mortgage Bank Plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (No 2) HL 27-Nov-1997
A surveyor’s negligent valuation had led to the plaintiff obtaining what turned out to be inadequate security for his loan. A cause of action against a valuer for his negligent valuation arises when a relevant and measurable loss is first recorded. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Costs

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.181342

Anderson v Cheltenham and Gloucester Plc: EAT 5 Dec 2013

EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Claimant failed to beat earlier Calderbank offer at remedy stage. Employment Tribunal made costs order against her limited to andpound;10,000. On consideration of EAT authorities, EAT concluded that ET had failed to take into account relevant factors. Having done so, costs order set aside and appeal allowed. – Observations made about setting off costs order against compensatory award.

Pdeter Clark J
[2013] UKEAT 0221 – 13 – 0512
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.520037

Excalibur Ventures Llc v Texas Keystone Inc and Others: ComC 13 Dec 2013

The claimant had pursued a very substantial claim against the defendant, but had failed at trial.
Held: It was not disputed that the claimant must pay the defendant’s costs. But the claimant was in effect a mere brass plate, and it had lost very clearly. The court now looked at the level at which costs should be paid.
Christopher Clarke LJ said:

Christopher Clarke LJ
[2013] EWHC 4278 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519999

Baker Tilly (A Firm) v Makar: QBD 27 Mar 2013

The claimant accountants had represented the defendant in a dispute with former employees. They sought payment of their costs, but the claim was stayed until the defendant had the opportunity to to seek representation by a MacKenzie friend after the taxing master became concerned for her health and as to her ability to conduct proceedings. They now appealed against that stay.
Held: Sir Raymond Jack saaid: ‘the Master put more weight on the incident of 18th July than it could bear and that he should have taken into account Miss Makar’s appearances before other judges. I also bear in mind that I have a more complete description of the incident than was before the Master. In all the circumstances he should not have concluded that it was established that Miss Makar lacked capacity and he should not have stayed the assessment pending the appointment of a litigation friend for Miss Makar. There is then no bar to Baker Tilly’s application for an interim costs certificate

Sir Raymond Jack
[2013] EWHC 759 (QB), [2013] 3 Costs LR 444
Bailii
Mental Capacity Act 2005 2, Civil Procedure Rules 21
Citing:
Cited – Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis CA 16-Dec-2010
Renewed application for leave to appeal against tenancy possession order. The respondent argued that as a result of his suffering Asperger’s syndrome, the court should have adjourned the proceedings to see whether he was a protected party in need of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice, Health

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519762

Bruce and Company v Ferguson: ScSf 23 Sep 2013

The Sheriff Principal, having resumed consideration of the cause, refuses the appeal; adheres to the sheriff’s interlocutors of 17 July 2012 and 6 September 2012; finds the appellants liable to the respondents in the expenses of the appeal and allows an account thereof to be given in and remitted to the Auditor of Court to report and tax; certifies the cause as suitable for the employment of junior counsel.

[2013] ScotSC 86
Bailii
Scotland

Costs

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.519255

Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2): SC 11 Dec 2013

The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to shredded tyres, and the applicants had mounted a sustained challenge. The applicants had not been granted legal aid, but initially had had had their costs liability capped. Following a loss at the House of Lords, their opponents submitted bill of nearly andpound;90,000.
Held: The liability of the appellants would be limited to andpound;25,000. This was the amount put forward as security for costs, and which was not opposed by the respondents. The court set out principles deriveable from the judgment at the ECJ: ‘i) First, the test is not purely subjective. The cost of proceedings must not exceed the financial resources of the person concerned nor ‘appear to be objectively unreasonable’, at least ‘in certain cases’. (The meaning of the latter qualification is not immediately obvious, but it may be better expressed in the German version ‘in Einzelfallen’, meaning simply ‘in individual cases’.) The justification is related to the objective of the relevant European legislation (referred to in para 32 of the judgment), which is to ensure that the public ‘plays an active role’ in protecting and improving the quality of the environment.
ii) The court did not give definitive guidance as to how to assess what is ‘objectively unreasonable’. In particular it did not in terms adopt Sullivan LJ’s suggested alternative of an ‘objective’ assessment based on the ability of an ‘ordinary’ member of the public to meet the potential liability for costs. While the court did not apparently reject that as a possible factor in the overall assessment, ‘exclusive’ reliance on the resources of an ‘average applicant’ was not appropriate, because it might have ‘little connection with the situation of the person concerned’.
iii) The court could also take into account what might be called the ‘merits’ of the case: that is, in the words of the court, ‘whether the claimant has a reasonable prospect of success, the importance of what is at stake for the claimant and for the protection of the environment, the complexity of the relevant law and procedure, the potentially frivolous nature of the claim at its various stages.’
iv) That the claimant has not in fact been deterred for carrying on the proceedings is not ‘in itself’ determinative.
v) The same criteria are to be applied on appeal as at first instance.’
Applying the principles, the amount of andpound;25,000 was neither subjectively nor objectively excessive.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Hope, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 78, [2014] 1 WLR 55, [2014] 3 Costs LO 319, [2014] 1 All ER 760, [2014] 2 CMLR 25, [2014] Env LR 17, UKSC 2010/0030
Bailii, Baillii Summary, SC Summary, SC
EIA Directive 85/337/EEC, IPPC Directive 96/61/EC, Council Directive 2003/35/EC 6
England and Wales
Citing:
At HL – Edwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
SC Reference – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .
ECJ (Opinion) – Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
ECJ – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .
Cited – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Another, Ex Parte JC (A Child) CA 10-Aug-2000
The restrictions placed upon the maximum class sizes in turn restricted the rights of parents to appeal against refusal of a school place. It is for the parent to satisfy the original admissions committee and the appeal committee of the need for a . .
At First Instance – Edwards, Regina (on the Application Of) v Environment Agency and Another Admn 2-Apr-2004
The claimant challenged the granting of permission to a cement factory to change its energy systems to be operated by the burning of waste tyres. The respondent was concerned as to the standing of the claimant. He was impecunious, but associated . .
Cited – DEB Deutsche Energiehandels-Und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland ECJ 22-Dec-2010
ECJ Effective judicial protection of rights derived from European Union law – Right of access to a court – Legal aid – National legislation refusing legal aid to legal persons in the absence of ‘public interest’ . .

Cited by:
At SC (2) – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 13-Feb-2014
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters – Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, European, Costs

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518898

Dunn v Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd: EAT 8 Oct 2013

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Abusive and threatening e-correspondence accompanied an application to an Employment Tribunal for unpaid wages, where the basis for claiming underpayment was never clearly set out, and when the matter was heard evidence as to how the employer had calculated payments was not challenged, although assertions were made by the Claimant’s representative in an unspecific manner about the propriety of the payments. The Employment Judge rejected the claims, and awarded costs. An appeal alleged that the EJ had behaved unprofessionally and was accompanied by abusive and threatening emails against the employer and its lawyers. Though giving a clear warning as to costs, HHJ Shanks allowed the claim to proceed so that the Respondents could respond to the allegations, and the EJ comment. After they had done, and some two weeks before the appeal, it was withdrawn. But the Respondent then asked for costs. The Claimant asked that this be considered at an oral hearing, for which she then failed to turn up though it was found she or her representative knew of it, and it was proper to proceed. The EAT was satisfied that the conduct came within rule 34A EAT rules, and that it ought to make an order, but moderated the amount within r.34B so as to be considerably less than claimed.

Langstaff P J
[2013] UKEAT 0392 – 12 – 0810
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518724

Hunt, Regina (on The Application of) v North Somerset Council: CA 21 Nov 2013

Reasons for costs order made on failure of the claimant’s applications.
Held: The respondent should be entitled to recover half of its costs of the appeal. Rimer LJ said that by the time that the appeal came on for hearing, it was far too late to consider granting any relief (by which he must have had in mind a quashing order), even if – as to which the court had doubts – it might have been appropriate for relief to be granted a year earlier when the matter was before Wyn Williams J: ‘In these circumstances, the court considers that it would be wrong in principle to award any costs to Mr Hunt. The appeal proved to be of no practical value to him; and, in the court’s view it was always one which was destined to fail.
6. As the council was the successful party in the appeal, the court considers that it is in principle entitled to its costs. On the other hand, the court has regard to the fact that the council resisted the appeal not only on the basis that this was not a case for relief, but also on the two substantive grounds on which it lost. Its resistance on those two grounds increased the costs of the appeal. We regard that consideration as pointing away from an order awarding the council all of its costs.’

Moore-Bick, Rimer, Underhill LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1483
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Hunt v North Somerset Council Admn 18-Jul-2012
The claimant who required support from the Council for his ADHD disorder challenged the respondent’s budget insofar as it limited support for children’s services in the Revenue Budget. Ge said that in making its decision to cut the budget, the . .
Main judgment – Hunt, Regina (on The Application of) v North Somerset Council CA 6-Nov-2013
Appeal against an order dismissing the challenge by the appellant, to the lawfulness of the decision of the respondent, the Council to cut its Youth Services budget for the year 2012/2013. The claimant suffered ADHD and relied on services supported . .

Cited by:
Costs at CA – Hunt v North Somerset Council SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellant had sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent to approve a Revenue Budget for 2012/13 as to the provision of youth services. He applied for declarations that the respondent had failed to comply with section 149 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518319

Mynt Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Oct 2013

FTTTx COSTS – appellant unsuccessful before First-tier Tribunal – permission to appeal to Upper Tribunal obtained – appeal lodged but later withdrawn – whether appellant should pay respondents’ costs of First-tier Tribunal appeal – appeal begun before VAT and Duties Tribunal – no order in respect of costs or application of rules made on transfer to Tax Chamber – appeal not categorised – whether ‘old’ rules should apply – yes

[2013] UKFTT 635 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Costs

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.517727

Jones v Standard Life Employee Services Ltd: EAT 7 Aug 2013

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Constructive Dismissal – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
An application, made shortly before a Tribunal hearing was due, for disclosure of documents was rejected by the Tribunal. Several grounds were argued on appeal against that decision. Each was rejected. The Judge was held entitled to exercise his discretion as he did.

Langstaff P J
[2013] UKEAT 0023 – 13 – 0708
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517541

Aoun v Bahri and Another: ComC 6 Feb 2002

Application for security for costs against the claimant.

Moore-Bick, J
[2002] EWHC 29 (Commercial), [2002] 3 All ER 182
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Mohamad Ali Aoun v Hassan Bahri, Costas Angelou CA 31-Jul-2002
The claimant wanted to appeal an order to pay the defendants’ costs already ordered, and to provide security for costs of the remaining action. The defendants requested security for the costs of the appeal. Throughout the matter the claimant had . .
Cited – Harris v Wallis ChD 10-Mar-2006
The claimant sought his profit share from a partnership. The defendant complained that the claimant had for some time put his assets beyond reach, and obtained an order for security for costs. The claimant now appealed.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.171170

Ackerman v Ackerman and Others: ChD 12 Aug 2011

The parties disputed the division of assets within a group of companies.

Roth J
[2011] EWHC 2183 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.442740

Radu v Houston and Another: CA 30 Oct 2006

Waller LJ doubted whether it was appropriate to make an order in the unless form. An order for security is intended to give a claimant a choice as to whether they put up security and continue with their action or withdraw the claim. That choice is meant to be a proper choice. An order to raise a large sum of money should not be made subject to the unless sanction until the claimant has been given a real opportunity to find the money. Waller LJ considered it preferable to adopt instead the practice of the Commercial Court. There, orders for security do not usually provide for the claim to be struck out without further order. Instead, the other party is given liberty to apply to the court in the event of default. This enables the court to put the paying party to their election to pay or not to pay, and then if appropriate to dismiss the claim.
Waller LJ was clear that if an unless order was made, the period for complying with it should be generous. He stated: ‘The making of an order for security is not intended to be a weapon by which a defendant can obtain a speedy summary judgment without a trial.’

Waller LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1700
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.247421

Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions: CA 1995

The court set out the principles to be applied by the court upon an application for security for costs.
1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
2. The possibility or probability that the plaintiff company will be deterred from pursuing its claim by an order for security is not without more a sufficient reason for not ordering security. It is implicit that a company may have difficulty meeting an order.
3. The court must balance the injustice to the plaintiff prevented from pursuing a proper claim against the injustice to the defendant if no security is ordered and at the trial the plaintiff’s claim fails and the defendant finds himself unable to recover his costs. The power must neither be used for oppression by stifling a claim particularly when the failure to meet that claim might in itself have been a material cause of the plaintiff’s impecuniosity, nor as a weapon for the impecunious company to put pressure on a more prosperous company.
4. The court will look to the prospects of success, but not go into the merits in detail.
5. In setting the amount it can order any amount up to the full amount claimed by way of security, provided that it is more than a simply nominal amount; it is not bound to make an order of a substantial amount.
6. Before refusing security the court must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the claim would be stifled. This might be inferred without direct evidence, but the court should also allow that external resources might be available.
7. The lateness of the application can properly be taken into account.
Peter Gibson LJ: ‘The court will properly be concerned not to allow the power to order security to be used as an instrument of oppression such as by stifling a genuine claim by an indigent company against a more prosperous company. But it will also be concerned not to be so reluctant to order security that it becomes a weapon whereby the impecunious company can use its inability to pay costs as a means of putting unfair pressure on the more prosperous company’.
And ”Before the court refuses to order security on the ground that it would unfairly stifle a valid claim, the court must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is probable that a claim would be stifled . . the court should consider not only whether the plaintiff company can provide security either from its own resources to continue the litigation, but also whether it can raise the money needed from its directors, shareholders or other backers or interested investors. As this is likely to be peculiarly within the knowledge of the plaintiff company, it is for the plaintiff to satisfy the court that it would be prevented by an order for security from continuing the litigation.’

Peter Gibson LJ
[1995] 3 All ER 534
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Farrer v Lacy, Hartland and Co 1885
The court will seek not to allow the power to order security for costs to be used as an instrument of oppression, by stifling a genuine claim by an indigent company against a more prosperous company, particularly when the failure to meet that claim . .
Cited – Okotcha v Voest Alpine Intertrading GmbH CA 1993
When deciding whether to order security for costs, the possibility or probability that the plaintiff company will be deterred from pursuing its claim is not the sole deciding factor. . .
Cited – Roburn Construction Ltd v William Irwin (South) and Co Ltd 1991
When making an order for security for costs, the court will normally order a substantial sum, but need not. . .
Cited – Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd CA 1973
The court exercises a full discretion when ordering security for costs.
Where a plaintiff who is ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction has no assets within it, he or she may still yet convince the court against ordering security for costs if . .
Cited – Trident International Freight Services Ltd v Manchester Ship Canal Co 1990
There was evidence that the plaintiff was no longer trading, and that it had previously received support from another company which was a creditor of the plaintiff company and therefore had an interest in the plaintiff’s claim continuing. The court . .
Cited – Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd 1987
When considering an application for security for costs against a litigant resident in the EU, the courts must allow for the new additional scope for enforcement of any judgment under the 1982 Act. In this case, an order for security for costs . .
Cited – Pearson v Naydler 1977
That the statute required it to be likely that a company might find it difficult to pay costs before allowing a requirement for security for costs, indicated that an order may be expected to cause difficulty. However the court will not allow an . .

Cited by:
Applied – Danemark Limited v BAA Plc CA 16-Oct-1995
The defendant had obtained an order or additional security for costs against the defendant company (registered with andpound;100 share capital) under the section. It appealed. There was evidence to suggest some fraud by the plaintiff, but also that . .
Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another CA 28-Jul-2006
The claimants sought damages after publication of articles alleging severe mistreatment of a servant. One defendant had settled and apologised, but the defendant publisher and author had persisted with the allegation. The claimants who lived in . .
Cited – Spy Academy Ltd v Sakar International Inc CA 23-Jul-2009
Claimant’s appeal against order for security for costs. An order had been returned having been sent to the correct address, but to the wrong person, it was returned. On the claimant appearing by its director the judge made the order.
Held: The . .
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.183481

Rubin v Rubin: FD 10 Mar 2014

The court heard an application by the wife for a legal services payment order.

Mostyn J
[2014] EWHC 611 (Fam)
Bailii
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – TL v ML and others FD 9-Dec-2005
. .
Cited – Currey v Currey CA 18-Oct-2006
Where one party in an ancillary relief claim was not entitled to legal aid, but showed a need for legal representation which he or she could not afford, the court could make an order requiring the other party to make a costs allowance. The nature of . .
Cited – Makarskaya v Korchagin FD 21-Jun-2013
. .

Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.522292

Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd: CA 1973

The court exercises a full discretion when ordering security for costs.
Where a plaintiff who is ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction has no assets within it, he or she may still yet convince the court against ordering security for costs if he or she were able to show that the application was being used oppressively so as to stifle a genuine claim, and the Court ‘would also consider whether the company’s want of means has been brought about by any conduct by the defendants’.
Lord Denning MR set out some of the matters which the court might, in an appropriate case, take into account in deciding whether, and if so, how, to exercise its discretion: ‘Such as whether the company’s claim is bona fide and not a sham, and whether the company has a reasonably good prospect of success . . whether there is an admission by the defendants on the pleadings or elsewhere that money is due . . whether the application for security was being used oppressively – so as to try to stifle a genuine claim . . whether the company’s want of means has been brought about by any conduct by the defendants, such as delay in payment or delay in doing their part of the work.’

Lord Denning MR
[1973] QB 609, [1973] 2 All ER 273
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions CA 1995
The court set out the principles to be applied by the court upon an application for security for costs.
1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light of all the relevant . .
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.225881

Re S (A Child): SC 25 Mar 2015

The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the Court of Appeal against care and placement orders made in a county court. The LA now appealed against an order for it to pay costs.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In the absence of some suggestion of bad or reprehensible behaviour by the Local Authority, the standard rule as to the non availability of costs in such cases should be followed. There are differences between trials and appeals. ‘At first instance, ‘nobody knows what the judge is going to find’, whereas on appeal the factual findings are known. Not only that, the judge’s reasons are known. Both parties have an opportunity to ‘take stock’ and consider whether they should proceed to advance or resist an appeal and to negotiate on the basis of what they now know. So it may well be that conduct which was reasonable at first instance is no longer reasonable on appeal. But in my view that does not alter the principles to be applied: it merely alters the application of those principles to the circumstances of the case.’

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2015] UKSC 20, [2015] WLR(D) 163, [2015] 2 All ER 778, [2015] 1 WLR 1631, [2015] 1 FCR 549, [2015] Fam Law 513, UKSC 2014/0101, [2015] 2 FLR 208
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
Cited – Re B-S (Children) CA 17-Sep-2013
The mother had been refused leave to oppose her child’s adoption. She now appealed.
Held: A court facing such an application faced two questions: Has there been a change in circumstances? If not, that is the end of the matter. If yes, then the . .
Appeal from – Re S (Children) CA 28-Feb-2014
F appealed against a placement order in respect of his daughter. The court was asked whether the judgment had been based upon proper evidence and reasoned sufficiently.
Held: The appeal was allowed, an interim care order is substituted in . .
Cited – Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2) CA 1-Apr-1991
In ancillary relief proceedings, the husband had not made frank disclosure of his assets. The final Calderbank offer of andpound;600,000 was made only the day before the substantive hearing. The offer was rejected. The judge awarded the wife a lump . .
Cited – London Borough of Sutton v Davis (Costs) (No 2) 1994
In cases involving children costs awarded against one parent or another are exceptional since the court is anxious to avoid the situation where a parent may feel ‘punished’ by the other parent which will reduce co-operation between them. This will . .
Cited – Keller v Keller and Legal Aid Board CA 21-Oct-1994
The standard practice of not awarding costs in children cases overrides the possibility of making a hardship order from Landlord. Costs orders are unusual in custody disputes and no order was to be made against the Legal Aid Board in favour of an . .
Cited – G v E and Others FD 21-Dec-2010
(Court of Protection) Baker J awarded costs against a local authority which had been guilty of misconduct which, he held, justified departure from the general rule. He observed: ‘Parties should be free to bring personal welfare issues to the Court . .

Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.544727

Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd: 1987

When considering an application for security for costs against a litigant resident in the EU, the courts must allow for the new additional scope for enforcement of any judgment under the 1982 Act. In this case, an order for security for costs against a plaintiff German company was refused because these additional powers made it unnecessary.
The court should not go into the merits of the claim in detail unless it can clearly be demonstrated that there is a high degree of probability of success or failure.

Brown-Wilkinson VC
[1987] 1 WLR 420, [1987] 1 All ER 1074
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982$ 2(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – Raeburn v Andrews 1878
Security for costs . .

Cited by:
Reconsidered – Fitzgerald and Others v Williams and Others O’Regan and Others v Same CA 3-Jan-1996
Security for costs should not to be granted against an EC National in the absence of some particular difficulty. The Treaty required citizens of other states which were signatories of the convention. The importance of accurate evidence is . .
Cited – Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions CA 1995
The court set out the principles to be applied by the court upon an application for security for costs.
1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light of all the relevant . .
Cited – Golden Grove Estates Ltd v Chancerygate Asset Management Ltd ChD 30-Apr-2007
Application for security for costs. . .
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.182950

Infinity Distribution Ltd v The Khan Partnership Llp: CA 20 Apr 2021

Appeal raising a question on the form of security for costs to be provided where the Court is satisfied that it is an appropriate case to order security.
Held: The gateway conditions for an order for security of costs are matters of fact, not discretion

[2021] EWCA Civ 565
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.661942

TL v ML and others: FD 9 Dec 2005

[2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rubin v Rubin FD 10-Mar-2014
The court heard an application by the wife for a legal services payment order. . .
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.279014

Greenwich Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and Others: ChD 13 Apr 1999

It is permissible for a court to order security for costs to be paid against a plaintiff limited company incorporated out of the jurisdiction, provided it appeared just to do so. There is no need to satisfy the apparent requirements of the Companies Acts.
Residence in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man will satisfy the condition of foreign residence.

Times 13-Apr-1999, Gazette 06-May-1999, [1999] 2 Lloyds Rep 308
Companies Act 1985 726, Rules of the Supreme Court Order 23 r 1(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.81018

SS v MCP (No 2): FD 3 Nov 2021

Children – Custody rights – Jurisdiction – Allegation that mother wrongfully removing child born in England to India
As to an application for security for costs, ‘It is clear from the judgment of Moylan LJ in Re M that the burden of surmounting the substantive threshold falls on the applicant. He has to show that there are circumstances here which are sufficiently compelling to require or make it necessary that the court should exercise its protective jurisdiction. The burden is to demonstrate that a crisis has erupted and that in consequence the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, serious harm, of the type, as Sir James Munby P suggested, that would engage articles 2 or 3 (i.e. a threat to life or of inhuman or degrading treatment). In Re M (Wardship: Jurisdiction and Powers) [2015] EWHC 1433, the President stated that he did not need to consider whether the jurisdiction would be exercisable where the risk to the child is of harm falling short of harm of the type that would engage Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention. In my judgment, if Moylan LJ’s substantive threshold is not to be robbed of meaningful content, the bar must be set at that level of harm. That level is not positioned at the ‘very extreme end of the spectrum’ (see Re M at [105]) but rather at a point which rightly reflects the criteria of caution, circumspection and necessity. It also gives effect to the key underlying principle that the jurisdiction is protective in nature to be exercised in a supporting, residual role (ibid at [107]).’

Mr Justice Mostyn
[2021] EWHC 2898 (Fam), [2021] WLR(D) 558
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.669926

Chernukhin and Others v Danilina: CA 30 Jul 2018

Unusual appeal concerning the quantum of security for costs ordered.

Longmore, Hamblen LJJ, Sir Stephen Richards
[2018] EWCA Civ 1802, [2018] WLR(D) 492, [2019] 1 WLR 758, [2018] 4 Costs LR 859
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.620458

In re C (Children) (Family Proceedings: Case Management): CA 12 Oct 2012

The court has a general power summarily to dismiss a meritless claim for security for costs in a family case.

Lord Justice Munby
[2013] 1 FLR 1089, [2012] EWCA Civ 1489
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.669927

Assaubayev and Others v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd: SCCO 26 Oct 2012

[2012] EWHC 90223 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Assaubayev and Others v Michael Wilson and Partners, Ltd QBD 21-Mar-2014
. .
See Also – Assaubayev and Others v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd CA 20-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the judge was wrong to stay a claim by which the Appellants challenged the entitlement of the Respondent to recover legal fees in circumstances where, as they contend, the Court itself has and should exercise its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516378

Practice Direction On Costs In Criminal Proceedings: CACD 3 Oct 2013

John Thomas, Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd LCJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 1632, [2013] 1 WLR 3255
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Criminal Practice Directions CACD 3-Oct-2013
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Virgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 11-Sep-2014
Virgin had successfully taken a private prosecution against the defendants for copyright infringement. They sought an order for their costs to be paid from central funds. On taking confiscation proceedings, costs were now sought against the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516268

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 1 Aug 2013

The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him to discuss budgets and budgetary assumptions.
Held: The claimant had failed to deliver the required costs budget in time, and any costs in the action beyond the court fees would be disallowed.

Master McLoud
[2013] EWHC 2355 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Mar-2014
Application for discovery of documents held by a third party, the Police Complaints Commission) in a defamation action. . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Jun-2014
. .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Jul-2014
The claimant MP had a bad tempered altercation with police officers outside Downing Street. He sued the defendant newspaper in defamation saying that they had falsely accused him of calling te officers ‘plebs’. One officer now sued the MP saying . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Oct-2014
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant. In the second action, the policeman claimant alleged defamation by the first claimant. The court heard applications as to the admission of expert evidence, and as to the inclusion or otherwise of . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited QBD 27-Nov-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516223

Curzon v Hobbs and Others: UTLC 10 Sep 2013

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – late withdrawal of appeal – non-disclosure of facts rendering appeal redundant – costs – Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal)(Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, rule 10(3)(b)

Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President
[2012] UKUT 419 (LC)
Bailii
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal)(Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 10(3)(b)
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516024

Redwing Construction Ltd v Wishart: TCC 17 Jan 2011

The court considered certain issues about Conditional Fee Agreements (‘CFAs’) and After the Event Insurance (‘ATE Insurance’) and the extent and scope of their recovery.

Akenhead J
[2011] EWHC 19 (TCC), [2011] BLR 186, [2011] Lloyd’s Rep IR 331, [2011] TCLR 5, [2011] CILL 2997, [2011] 15 EG 94
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.428290

Knight v Woore: 31 Jan 1837

Trespass. Justification under a right of way to carry water and goods. As to the water, verdict for Defendant ; to the goods, verdict for Plaintiff. Held, that Defendant had substantially succeeded, and was entitled to the general costs in the cause.
Held also, that he was entitled to the costs of a witness who spoke as to the water, notwithstanding he spoke also as to the goods.

[1837] EngR 466, (1837) 3 Bing NC 534, (1837) 132 ER 516
Commonlii
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Costs

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.313583

European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland: ECJ 12 Sep 2013

ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition

Kokott AG
C-530/11, [2013] EUECJ C-530/11
Bailii
Directive 2003/35/EC
European
Citing:
See Also – Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
ECJ – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .
At SC – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .

Cited by:
Opinion – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 13-Feb-2014
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters – Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings . .
ECJ – Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
ECJ – European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland ECJ 12-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition . .
ECJ – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2) SC 11-Dec-2013
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Costs

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515250

Myers v Rothfield: CA 1938

The solicitor had left the conduct of proceedings largely to his managing clerk. The trial judge held that the solicitor had not been guilty of professional misconduct in allowing the defences to be delivered, but that he had been guilty of such misconduct in allowing the inadequate affidavits of documents to be made. He ordered the solicitor to pay one-third of the plaintiff’s costs of the action and two-thirds of the costs of the application.
Held: (MacKinnon LJ dissenting) Assuming that the acts in question, if done by a solicitor personally, would constitute professional misconduct on his part, the solicitor was not liable as he had appointed a fully qualified clerk to prepare the defences and affidavits of documents, and the acts had been done not by the solicitor himself but by the clerk.

Greer and Slesser LJJ, MacKinnon LJ
[1939] 1 KB 109, [1938] 3 All ER 498
Cited by:
Appeal from – Myers v Elman HL 1939
The solicitor had successfully appealed against an order for a contribution to the other party’s legal costs, after his clerk had filed statements in court which he knew to be misleading. The solicitor’s appeal had been successful.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.279002

Edwards v Edwards: 1958

[1958] P 235, [1958] 2 WLR 956, [1958] 2 All ER 179
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.278999

Sinclair-Jones v Kay: CA 1988

The court was asked whether the costs of certain hearings should be paid by the solicitor or his client, and has regard to the solicitor’s responsibilities for the hearings going off.

[1989] 1 WLR 114, [1988] 2 All ER 611
Cited by:
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.279004

Gupta v Comer: CA 1991

The plaintiff applied for an Order that costs be paid personally by the defendant’s solicitors on the basis that the solicitors had incurred such costs unreasonably and had failed to conduct the proceedings with reasonable competence and expedition. The solicitors objected to an Order being, saying that the Court had no jurisdiction to make such an Order unless serious dereliction of duty by the solicitor could be established.
Held: The solicitors’ appeal against an order that certain costs be paid personally by them failed, and the Order had been properly made even though the solicitors had not been guilty of serious dereliction of duty or gross negligence or neglect. The purpose of making a wasted costs order against a solicitor in pursuance of this rule is compensatory and not punitive.

[1991] 2 WLR 494, [1991] 1 QB 629, [1991] 1 All ER 289
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.279000

Wilkinson v Wilkinson: CA 1962

Absence of legal representative from a hearing of which he had been notified. Physical absence was considered as absence for the purpose of such a rule.
Ormerod LJ held that the provision in the Matrimonial Causes Act should be construed as meaning that physical absence was ‘absence’.
Wilmer LJ said that ‘absence’ was the opposite of physical presence and that a person could apply to have a decree reversed provided he furnished a satisfactory reason for his absence.
Danckwerts LJ said that ‘absence’ could only mean ‘physical absence’. He said it then became a matter for the discretion of the court whether the decree should be reversed.

Ormerod LJ, Wilmer LJ, Danckwerts LJ
[1962] 3 WLR 1, [1963] P 1, [1962] 1 All ER 922
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.279006

R and T Thew Ltd v Reeves (No 2): CA 2 Jan 1982

The remedy of an award of costs against a solicitor personally is only available to make good loss where the solicitor is guilty of inexcusable misconduct such as to merit reproof.
It is not always easy to separate the effect of a disciplinary order from its purpose or objective.
Lord Denning MR, after reference to the authorities, said of the supervisory compensatory jurisdiction: ‘The cases show that it is not available in cases of mistake, error of judgment or mere negligence. It is only available where the conduct of the solicitor is inexcusable and such as to merit reproof.’
O’Connor LJ, with whom Dunn LJ agreed, said: ‘The cases show that such an order ought not to be made unless it is shown that the Thews have suffered loss as a result of serious misconduct by the solicitors in the case.’

Lord Denning MR
[1982] 3 All ER 1086, [1982] QB 1283, [1982] 3 WLR 869
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – R and T Thew Ltd v Reeves CA 1982
A costs order had been drawn up incorrectly, and corrected without reference to the parties: ‘All the cases show that when a slip is corrected in this way, the correction dates back to the date when the document originally took effect . . unless . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Cited – Coll v Floreat Merchant Banking Ltd and Others QBD 3-Jun-2014
The court was asked whether it was possible to bring contempt proceedings against a solicitor for the breach of an undertaking other than one given to the court. The parties had been employee and employer. On the breakdown of that relationship, the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.279005

Mauroux v Sociedade Comercial Abel Pereira da Fonseca SARL: 1972

The jurisdiction to order a legal professional to pay costs is primarily compensatory. The jurisdiction should not be attracted merely because of the lawyer’s bona fide mistake or error of judgment.

[1972] 2 All ER 1085, [1972] 1 WLR 962
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.279001

Holden and Co (A firm) v Crown Prosecution Service: 1990

It is part of the deterrent of the wasted costs procedure that solicitors are named and the adverse publicity is therefore an important deterrent to impropriety.

[1990] 2 QB 261, [1990] 1 All ER 368, [1990] 2 WLR 1137
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA 10-Jun-1998
Limitation on Making of Anonymity Orders
A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.200459

Currie and Co v The Law Society: 1976

Set-off of costs or damages to which one party is entitled against costs or damages to which another party is entitled depends upon the application of equitable rules. May J said: ‘[T]he set-off takes precedence over the solicitor’s particular lien, which will then be limited to the balance, if any, due to his client after the set off’ and it is ‘a ‘question for the court’s discretion.’

May J
[1977] QB 990, [1976] 3 All ER 832, [1976] 3 WLR 785
Cited by:
Cited – Lockley v National Blood Transfusion Service CA 1992
There was an interlocutory dispute over the granting of an extension of time for service of the defence. The legally aided plaintiff challenged the costs orders made by the district registrar and the judge. Each ordered that the costs be the . .
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.216498

Orchard v South Eastern Electricity Board: CA 1987

The threat of applications for a wasted costs order should not be used to intimidate, but if one side considers that the other to have behaved in an improper, unreasonable or negligent way and likely to cause a waste of costs, it is not objectionable to alert the other side to that view. Drawing the distinction between unacceptable intimidation and acceptable notice must depend on the professional judgment of those involved.

[1987] QB 565, [1987] 1 All ER 95, [1987] 2 WLR 102
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Cited – Connolly-Martin v Davis CA 27-May-1999
A claim was brought by a party against counsel for his opponent who had gone beyond his authority in giving an undertaking for his client.
Held: The claim had no prospect of success, and had been struck out correctly. Counsel offering to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.181823

DBE Energy Ltd v Biogas Products Ltd: TCC 20 May 2020

Consequential matters relating to interest and costs.

[2020] EWHC 1285 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Main judgment – DBE Energy Ltd v Biogas Products Ltd TCC 18-May-2020
Alleged breach of contract and/or negligence of the Defendant in relation to the design, manufacture and supply of components required by the Claimant for incorporation into its newly built anaerobic digestion facility . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.653325

Newcombe v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 20 Jun 2013

The applicant had been charged with assault. On the day of the trial, the prosecution offered no evidence. The magistrate awarded costs from central funds, but limited it to the day of the hearing. The applicant appealed by case stated.
Held: Though the district judge had a discretion in making his order, such discetion had its limits, and the decision fell outside them: ‘The district judge imposed the restriction on entitlement to costs because in his view the Appellant had acted unreasonably in not indicating earlier than the day of the trial that he was prepared to be bound over to keep the peace.’ That view was untenable.

Hickinbottom J, Sir John Thomas P QBD
[2013] EWHC 2160 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Emohare v Thames Magistrates Court Admn 12-Mar-2009
The circumstances that lead to a defendant losing his entitlement to a defendant’s costs order if he is successful in his defence are narrow, to reflect the need to respect the presumption of innocence at common law and under Article 6 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514296

Vince v Wyatt: CA 13 Jun 2013

(Subsidiary judgment) The former wife sought financial provision by way of a lump sum payment, but the application was made some twenty years after the divorce. Subsequently, H had become wealthy.
Held: The court set aside the orders of the deputy judge; struck out the wife’s substantive application; and ordered that, of the andpound;125,000 which by then the husband had paid in full, the wife should repay to him such sum as exceeded the state of her account with her solicitors, which amounted to an order for repayment of andpound;36,677. The court explained its striking-out order and its repayment order in judgments delivered on 8 May and 13 June 2013 respectively.

Thorpe, Jackson, Tomplinson LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 934
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Wyatt v Vince SC 11-Mar-2015
Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds
The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514233

Sud v London Borough of Ealing: CA 30 Jul 2013

The claimant appealed against an order that he contribute one half of the defendant’s costs of defending the employment claim which he had lost.

Maurice Kay VP CA, Patten, Fulford LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 949, [2013] 5 Costs LR 777, [2013] ICR D39, [2013] Eq LR 993, [2013] WLR(D) 320
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Costs, Employment

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514251

Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Ltd v Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Ltd and Another: TCC 24 Jul 2013

Caim for dilapidations on the termination of a lease of the Norton Building in Welwyn Garden City.

Ramsey J
[2013] EWHC 2227 (TCC), [2013] BLR 554, (2013) 149 Con LR 147, [2013] 5 Costs LR 758
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513786

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 May 2010

VAT – COSTS – Claim by Unsuccessful Appellant – Last Minute change to the HMRC’ statement of case – Tribunal decided that the change was material – Tribunal refused Application to hold HMRC to its statement of case but minded to make an award of costs to Appellant – Appeal continued – Appeal dismissed on merits – Appellant submitted a claim for costs in the sum of 312,500 pounds – Tribunal orders costs of 20,000 pounds

[2010] UKFTT 203 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Costs

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.422249

Rex v Kingston-upon-Hull Rent Tribunal ex parte Black: 1949

A landlord obtained an order of certiorari to quash an order of a rent tribunal which had reduced the rent of certain premises without hearing evidence on behalf of the landlord. Counsel appeared on behalf of the tribunal to oppose the making of the order. The court discussed the award of costs: ‘We decide this case on the ground that the landlord had to come here at considerable expense to herself, to have the decision of the tribunal quashed, and the tribunal have appeared by counsel and have disputed her right to have an order for certiorari. On the whole, as the tribunal have appeared here and contested the case, we think that the landlord ought to have her costs. . . If there had been no appearance by the tribunal, of course we should not have given costs in this case.’

Goddard L
[1949] 1 All ER 260
Review of Justices’ Decisions Act 1872 3
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.194530