Category: Costs

Clark v Ardington Electrical Services: CA 4 Apr 2001

(Orse Burdis v Livsey)
Kitchin, Jackson, Floyd LJJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 585, [2002] 3 WLR 762, [2003] QB 36
Bailii
Consumer Credit (Exempt Agreements) Order 1989, Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Clark v Tull (T/A Ardington Electrical Services) CA 1-May-2002
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.218103

GW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality): FD 18 Mar 2003

An entitlement to an equal division must reflect not only the parties’ respective contributions ‘but also an accrual over time’, and it would be ‘fundamentally unfair’ that a party who has made domestic contributions during a marriage of 12 years should be awarded the same proportion of the assets as a party who has made the domestic contributions for more than 20 years.
Mostyn QC J said: ‘[Foley] . . is now nearly 22 years old. The case of White v White has emphasised that the law in this area is not moribund but must move to reflect changing social values. I cannot imagine anyone nowadays seriously stigmatising pre-marital cohabitation as ‘living in sin’ or lacking the quality of emotional commitment assumed in marriage. Thus, in my judgment, where a relationship moves seamlessly from cohabitation to marriage without any major alteration in the way the couple live, it is unreal and artificial to treat the periods differently. On the other hand, if it is found that the pre-marital cohabitation was on the basis of a trial period to see if there was any basis for later marriage then I would be of the view that it would not be right to include it as part of the ‘duration of the marriage’. This was the finding made in the recent case of F v F (unreported) 14 January 2003 by Hartmann J in the High Court of Hong Kong, which decision contains some valuable insights on this and other aspects of the law of ancillary relief. There is no basis for such a finding in this case, and I therefore include the 18 months of pre-marital cohabitation here as part of the ‘duration of the marriage’
and ‘I do not shrink from saying that this is a difficult issue. The logic deployed by Mr. Pointer has obvious force. But on the other hand it seems to me that to adopt it requires me to put a blue pencil straight through the statutory criterion of the duration of the marriage. The failure of the judge in L v L (Financial Provision: Contributions) [2002] 1 FLR 642 (Lambert) to give sufficient weight to this factor was specifically criticised by the Court of Appeal. It seems to me that the assumption of equal value of contribution is very obvious where the marriage is over 20 years. For shorter periods the assumption seems to me to be more problematic. I am not attracted to a formulaic solution, as suggested by John Eekelaar, but I do in essence accept his proposition that the entitlement to an equal division must reflect not only the parties’ respective contributions but also an accrual over time’.
Mostyn QC J
[2003] EWHC 611 (Fam), [2003] Fam Law 386, [2003] 2 FLR 108, [2003] 2 FCR 289
Bailii
Family Proceedings (Amendment No 2) Rules 1999 (1999 No 3491) 2.69B, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 23
England and Wales
Cited by:
Doubted – Norris v Norris, Haskins v Haskins CA 28-Jul-2003
The court considered how orders for costs were to be made in ‘big money’ cases.
Held: There were two sets of rules. Cases should be considered by first applying the Civil Procedure Rules. This would allow the court to consider the full range . .
Preferred – M v M (Financial Relief: Substantial Earning Capacity) FD 29-Mar-2004
The parties had been married for 12 years, there were three children, one with special needs, and assets of over 12 million pounds. The court considered the application for ancillary relief. It was substantially agreed that the wife should receive . .
Not followed – Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane HL 24-May-2006
Fairness on Division of Family Capital
The House faced the question of how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In the one case there were substantial assets but a short marriage, and in the other a high income, but low capital.
Held: The 1973 Act . .
Cited – Rossi v Rossi FD 26-Jun-2006
W sought to challenge transactions entered into by H anticipating ancillary relief proceedings on their divorce. Nicholas Mostyn QC J said: ‘While of course no rigid rule can be expressed for the infinite variety of facts that arise in ancillary . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.247605

Compton, Regina (on the Application of) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust: CA 1 Jul 2008

Appeals against protective costs orders.
Waller LJ VP CA, Buxton, Smith LJJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 749, [2008] ACD 68, [2009] 1 WLR 1436, [2008] CP Rep 36, [2009] 1 All ER 978, [2009] PTSR 753
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Eweida v British Airways plc CA 16-Oct-2009
Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.270530

Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd: SC 29 Mar 2017

The court had ordered the respondent to pay the claimant’s costs. These were high because the solicitors had acted under a conditional fee agreement, and disproportionate to the funds at issue. The respondents challenged assignments of the original CFA.
Held: The appeal failed. Unless the effect of the deeds was to discharge the original CFA and replace it with new agreements made at the dates of the deeds, the success fee may properly be included in the costs order. Whether a variation amends the principal agreement or discharges and replaces it depends on the intention of the parties. The deeds of variation were not a sham. An amendment of the existing CFA is a natural way of dealing with further proceedings in the same action. They therefore take effect according to their terms.
‘proceedings’ is not a defined term in the legislation, nor is it a term of art under the general law. Its meaning must depend on its statutory context and on the underlying purpose of the provision in which it appears, so far as that can be discerned.
If there had been ATE cover in respect of liability for the costs of the trial, the insured is entitled after the commencement date to take out further ATE cover for appeals and to include them in his assessable costs under the 1999 costs regime.
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2017] UKSC 23, [2017] 1 WLR 1249, [2018] 1 All ER 292, [2017] WLR(D) 223, [2017] 2 Costs LO 247, UKSC 2014/0037
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary video, SC 2017 Feeb 08 am Video
Access to Justice Act 1999 27 58 58A, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
Main judgment – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 12-Nov-2014
PPI Sale – No Recovery from Remote Parties
The claimant sought repayment of payment protection insurance premiums paid by her under a policy with Norwich Union. The immediate broker arranging the loan was now insolvent, and she sought repayment from the second and other level intermediaties. . .
Cited – Masson, Templier and Co v De Fries CA 26-Feb-1910
Upon interpleader proceedings in the county court with regard to the title to goods taken in execution the claimant succeeded. The county court judge gave the judgment creditors leave to appeal to the Divisional Court upon condition that, if . .
Cited – Morris v Baron and Co HL 1918
The House drew a distinction between a variation of a contract required to be evidenced in writing, and the rescission (or discharge) of such a contract. The former was itself required to be evidenced in writing; the latter was not.
Lord . .
Cited – Wright v Bennett 1948
. .
Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Cited – Hawksford Trustees Jersey Ltd v Stella Global Uk Ltd and Another CA 19-Jul-2012
For the purpose of section 29 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, the costs incurred in respect of an ATE premium were recoverable only in the proceedings to which the policy related, ie as part of the costs of the trial if the policy related only to . .
Cited – Goldstein v Conley CA 4-May-2001
‘ proceedings at first instance and in this court are ordinarily treated as separate proceedings and in my judgment they support the conclusion that the costs of and incidental to one are not ordinarily treated as the costs of and incidental to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.581274

BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel: SC 17 Jun 2015

Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued the action, but lost, he would not become personally liable for the costs in the lower courts.
Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKSC 39, [2015] 4 Costs LO 467, [2015] WLR(D) 259, [2015] AC 1663, [2015] 4 All ER 672, [2015] BPIR 779, [2015] 3 WLR 1, UKSC 2014/0026
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Video
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 40(5), upreme Court Rules 2009 46
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Gabriel v Little and Others CA 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought repayment of sums loaned to the defendant by them under a facility letter supported by a legal charge. The charge had been enforced but the sums realised had been insufficient. . .
Cited – Borneman v Wilson CA 1884
The Wilsons, father and son, had acted as commercial agents of one Borneman. He began an action against them in the Chancery Division for an account of their dealings with his goods and obtained interlocutory relief on motion including an injunction . .
Cited – School Board for London v Wall Brothers CA 1891
. .
Cited – Heath v Tang, Stevens v Peacock CA 11-Aug-1993
The bankrupt applicants each applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the judgment for a liquidated sum on which the bankruptcy petition had been based. In the first case, the trustee in bankruptcy indicated his unwillingness to . .
Cited – Trustee of Property of Vickery (a Bankrupt) v Modern Security Systems Limited CA 15-Oct-1997
A trustee in bankruptcy will be treated as the party if he has in fact adopted the proceedings by conducting the litigation, even if there has been no formal substitution . .
Cited – In re Bluck, Ex parte Bluck 1887
The discretionary character of a costs order meant that it was not even a contingent liability until the order had actually been made . .
Cited – In re A Debtor (No 68 of 1911) 1911
. .
Cited – In re Pitchford 11-Jan-1924
. .
Cited – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
Cited – Glenister v Rowe CA 21-Apr-1999
The claimant sued for breach of trust. The action was re-instated after being struck out for want of prosecution, but in the meantime the defendant had been made bankrupt and then discharged from bankruptcy. An order for costs was then made which . .
Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .

Cited by:
Cited – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 29-Mar-2017
The court had ordered the respondent to pay the claimant’s costs. These were high because the solicitors had acted under a conditional fee agreement, and disproportionate to the funds at issue. The respondents challenged assignments of the original . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.549064

Hawksford Trustees Jersey Ltd v Stella Global Uk Ltd and Another: CA 19 Jul 2012

For the purpose of section 29 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, the costs incurred in respect of an ATE premium were recoverable only in the proceedings to which the policy related, ie as part of the costs of the trial if the policy related only to the trial, and not as part of the costs of the appeal.
Rix, Etherton, Patten LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 987, [2012] CP Rep 41, [2012] 5 Costs LR 886, [2012] WLR(D) 216, [2012] 1 WLR 3581
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 29-Mar-2017
The court had ordered the respondent to pay the claimant’s costs. These were high because the solicitors had acted under a conditional fee agreement, and disproportionate to the funds at issue. The respondents challenged assignments of the original . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.462970

Masson, Templier and Co v De Fries: CA 26 Feb 1910

Upon interpleader proceedings in the county court with regard to the title to goods taken in execution the claimant succeeded. The county court judge gave the judgment creditors leave to appeal to the Divisional Court upon condition that, if successful, they should not ask for costs of the appeal. The judgment creditors appealed to the Divisional Court.
Copies of certain documents, which were necessary for the use of counsel and the judges upon the appeal to the Divisional Court, were provided by the judgment creditors. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment creditors obtained from the Court of Appeal leave to appeal from the decision of the Divisional Court, and did so appeal. The before-mentioned copies of documents were necessary, and were used for the purposes of that appeal. That appeal was successful, and the claimant was ordered to pay to the judgment creditors the costs of and incident to the appeal. The bill of costs delivered by the judgment creditors to the claimant included items in respect of the before-mentioned copies of documents, which upon taxation the Master disallowed.
Held: that these items were rightly disallowed by the Master as not representing costs incurred for the purposes of the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[1910] 1 KB 535, [1910] UKLawRpKQB 30
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 29-Mar-2017
The court had ordered the respondent to pay the claimant’s costs. These were high because the solicitors had acted under a conditional fee agreement, and disproportionate to the funds at issue. The respondents challenged assignments of the original . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.668240

Goldstein v Conley: CA 4 May 2001

‘ proceedings at first instance and in this court are ordinarily treated as separate proceedings and in my judgment they support the conclusion that the costs of and incidental to one are not ordinarily treated as the costs of and incidental to the other. The costs of a party in this court would not ordinarily be regarded as the costs of and/or incidental to the costs at first instance. Equally I do not think that the costs of an appeal would ordinarily be regarded as costs incurred in connection with the proceedings at first instance.’
Clarke LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 637, [2001] L and TR 30, [2002] 1 WLR 281
4/5/2001
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 29-Mar-2017
The court had ordered the respondent to pay the claimant’s costs. These were high because the solicitors had acted under a conditional fee agreement, and disproportionate to the funds at issue. The respondents challenged assignments of the original . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.668242

Nelson’s Yard Management Company and Others v Eziefula: CA 21 Mar 2013

‘This appeal concerns the approach of the court to the determination of liability for the costs of an action where the claimant has discontinued proceedings, and to departing from the ‘presumption’ or ‘default’ rule in CPR Part 38.6(1). ‘
Arden, Beatson LJJ, Ryder J
[2013] EWCA Civ 235
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 21 September 2021; Ref: scu.471930

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 the general costs of the action, and costs relating to their defences and such part of the fee for instructions for brief and counsel’s fees as may be attributable to their defences.
Held: The approach taken was a rule of thumb, convenient in an ordinary case. The principle contest had been between the plaintiff and the other, unsuccessful, defendant. No authority compelled the court to allow simply a share of the overall costs of the action in every class of case, even if to follow it would result in injustice. To do so would ‘be to fly in the face of the generally accepted principle as stated in Ellingsen’s case? that the successful party is to be recompensed the liability he had reasonably incurred in defending himself”
[1951] 1 Ch 10
England and Wales
Citing:
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 by:
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.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.261318

Willmott v Barber: CA 24 Jun 1881

The Judge, at the trial of an action in which there was a claim and counterclaim, thinking both parties in the wrong, dismissed the action without costs, and also dismissed the counter-claim with costs, but ordered that if the costs of the counter-claim should not amount to half the whole costs of the action the Defendant should pay the difference to the Plaintiff.
Held: The order as to costs was irregular, inasmuch as, after dismissing the action without costs, it imposed part of the costs of the action upon the Defendant by way of penalty ; hut that in substance the order was within the discretion of the Judge, as it amounted to dismissing the claim and counter-claim and directing the Defendant to pay half the whole costs of the action.
Jessel MR
[1881] UKLawRpCh 181, (1881) 17 ChD 772
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from (ChD) – Willmott v Barber ChD 19-Jun-1880
In 1869 Barber granted a 99-year lease of three acres of land in east London, subject to a covenant against assignment or sub-letting without consent. In 1874, in breach of covenant, he sub-let one acre on an annual tenancy to Willmott (who owned a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.653256

Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd and Others: ChD 16 Dec 2015

Order for costs post patents action.
Birss J
[2015] EWHC 3837 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others PatC 24-Apr-2015
Allegations of patent infringement in manufacture of mobile phones. . .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others PatC 5-May-2015
Further directions for case management. . .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others PatC 21-Jul-2015
Application by the Eleventh Party, to strike out allegations of breaches of Article 101 TFEU which are made against it by the defendants in this action or for summary judgment in its favour on the points. In addition Ericsson applied to stay a . .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others PatC 23-Nov-2015
. .

Cited by:
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others PatC 29-Jan-2016
. .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd and Others PatC 22-Mar-2016
Judgment in a mobile telecommunications patent case involving Unwired Planet as claimant and Samsung and Huawei as defendants . .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others PatC 29-Apr-2016
. .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Another PatC 5-Apr-2017
. .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others CA 12-Apr-2017
Appeal from order revoking patent . .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Another PatC 7-Jun-2017
. .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Another (3083) PatC 30-Nov-2017
. .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Another (2988) PatC 30-Nov-2017
The court considered the structure of Standards Essential Patents and the FRAND licensing scheme: ‘art of the process of standardisation involves holders of patents which are essential to an international telecommunications standard declaring them . .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd and Another v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Another CA 23-Oct-2018
This appeal raises a number of important points of principle concerning the obligation upon the owner of a patent which protects a technology which its owner has declared to be essential to the implementation of one or more of the telecommunications . .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd and Another v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and Another SC 26-Aug-2020
The Court considered the licensing of Standard Essential Patents, those necessary for the design an use of smartphones. Huawei were said to have continued to use the technology despite the expiry of their licences. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.561584

Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (T/A Washington DC) (No 2): SCCO 20 Feb 2003

The appellant had been successful at first instance, had lost (unanimously) in the Court of Appeal and its appeal was allowed (unanimously) in the House of Lords.
Held: The general principles as to taxation of costs apply equally in the House of Lords: ‘With regard to the solicitors’ claim a success fee of 100% is sought. [Counsel for the Appellant] produced to us the opinion of Leading Counsel prior to the CFA being entered into which put the chances of success at no more than evens. That opinion was given against a background in which the appellant company had been successful at first instance and lost in the Court of Appeal. It is quite clear that the issues were finely balanced. It is generally accepted that if the chances of success are no better than 50% the success fee should be 100%.
The thinking behind this is that if a solicitor were to take two identical cases with a 60% chance of success in each it is likely that one would be lost and the other won. Accordingly the success fee (of 100%) in the winning case would enable the solicitor to bear the loss of running the other case and losing.
There is an argument for saying that in any case which reached trial a success fee of 100% is easily justified because both sides presumably believed that they had an arguable and winnable case. In this case we have no doubt at all that the matter was finely balanced and that the appropriate success fee is therefore 100%.’
[2003] EWHC 9024 (Costs), [2003] 2 Costs LR 204
Bailii
Practice Directions Applicable to Judicial Taxations in the House of Lords 27
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance – Designers Guild Limited v Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited PatC 14-Jan-1998
The defendant denied that it had copied the plaintiff’s designs.
Held: There was sufficient evidence of copying. It was wrong to dissect a work, but rather the court should look at the matter as a whole. . .
At CA – Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd CA 26-Mar-1999
The claimant alleged copying of designs. The defendant appealed a finding that copying had taken place.
Held: The rejection of the dissection test in Ladbroke was as to the subsistence of copyright and not as to infringement. Evidence of those . .
At HL – Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (Trading As Washington DC) HL 28-Nov-2000
Copyright Claim: Was it Copied, and How Much?
The claimant sought to enforce its copyright in artwork for a fabric design Ixia, saying the defendant’s design Marguerite infringed that copyright. Two issues faced the House. Just what had been copied and if any, then did this amount amount to the . .

Cited by:
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 – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.221667

Burke, Regina (on the Application of) v General Medical Council and others (Official Solicitor and others intervening): CA 28 Jul 2005

The claimant suffered a congenital degenerative brain condition inevitably resulting in a future need to receive nutrition and hydration by artificial means. He was concerned that a decision might be taken by medical practitioners responsible for his care to withdraw that treatment from him when he wished to continue to receive it, regardless of his pain or suffering. The council appealed a declaration which purported to guarantee to the claimant a right to have decided whether he should continue receiving treatment and sustenance beyond any point at which he lost the legal capacity to make his wishes clear.
Held: The declaration was set aside. The judge had been incorrect in interpreting the case of Glass to require resort to judicial authority as a legal requirement to authorise the doctors taking appropriate decisions about treatment. He had gone far beyond the situation before him, and made declarations which purported to be binding on the world. It was vital that the GMC guidelines be taught an implemented properly, and if they were so implemented, the claimant could be re-assured as to his care. There were great dangers in grappling with general issues divorced from a factual content that requires their determination:- ‘The danger is that the court will enunciate propositions of principle without full appreciation of the implications that these will have in practice, throwing into confusion those who feel obliged to attempt to apply those principles in practice.’
Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Wall
[2005] EWCA Civ 1003, Times 02-Aug-2005, [2005] 2 FLR 1223, [2006] QB 273, [2005] 3 WLR 1132
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (Burke) v General Medical Council Admn 30-Jul-2004
The applicant, suffering a life threatening disease, wanted to ensure his continued treatment and revival in the circumstance of losing his own capacity. He said the respondent’s guidelines for doctors were discriminatory and failed to protect his . .
Cited – Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security HL 17-Oct-1985
Lawfulness of Contraceptive advice for Girls
The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the . .
Cited – Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
Explained – Glass v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Mar-2004
The applicant’s adult son was disabled. There was a disagreement with the hospital about his care. The hospital considered that to alleviate his distress, he should not be resuscitated. The family wanted to take him home, fearing euthanasia. The . .
Cited – An NHS Trust v D (Medical Treatment: Consent: Termination) FD 28-Nov-2003
The defendant had been admitted to hospital under the 1983 Act and found to be pregnant. The doctors sought an order permitting an abortion. An order had been made, but the parties invited the court to say whether a court order was required at all. . .
Cited – Airedale NHS Trust v Bland HL 4-Feb-1993
Procedures on Withdrawal of Life Support Treatment
The patient had been severely injured in the Hillsborough disaster, and had come to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). The doctors sought permission to withdraw medical treatment. The Official Solicitor appealed against an order of the Court . .
Cited – In re J (a Minor) (Wardship: Medical treatment) CA 1-Oct-1990
J was born at 27 weeks’, weighing only 1.1kg. He suffered very severe and permanent brain damage at the time of his birth, the brain tissue then lost being irreplaceable. He was epileptic and the medical evidence was that he was likely to develop . .
Cited – In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) HL 4-May-1989
Where a patient lacks capacity, there is the power to provide him with whatever treatment or care is necessary in his own best interests. Medical treatment can be undertaken in an emergency even if, through a lack of capacity, no consent had been . .

Cited by:
Cited – Wyatt and Another v Portsmouth Hospital NHS and Another CA 12-Oct-2005
The appellants’ daughter had been born with very severe disabilities. Her doctors obtained an order allowing them a discretion not to ventilate her to keep her alive if necessary. She had improved, but the family now sought leave to appeal an order . .
Cited – D and D W v Portsmouth Hospital NHS; in re W (A Child) CA 3-May-2006
The claimants had sought court orders against the hospital to secure continuing life-supporting treatment for their daughter who had been born very severely disabled. The Trust now sought their costs from the various actions.
Held: The parents . .
Cited – Barracks v Coles and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 21-Jul-2006
The claimant sought to allege race discrimination and appealed refusal by the respondents to release required documents. She had been turned down for an appointment to the Trident task force, and sought disclosure of the reasons. The respondent said . .
Cited – AVS v A NHS Foundation Trust and Another CA 17-Jan-2011
The claimant contracted sporadic Creutzfeldt Jakob’s Disease disease. He executed a Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of his brother, expressing to him that he should do whatever was possible to protract his life. The brother now sought treatment . .
Cited – Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James SC 30-Oct-2013
The hospital where a gravely ill man had been treated had asked for a declaration that it would be in his best interests to withhold certain life-sustaining treatments from him. When can it be in the best interests of a living patient to withhold . .
Cited – Re JS (Disposal of Body) FD 10-Nov-2016
Child’s Wish for post-mortem cryonic Preservation
JS, a child of 14, anticipating her death from cancer expressed the desire that her body should receive cryonic preservation in the hope that one day a treatment might be available to allow her to be revived, and proceedings were issued. Her parents . .
Cited – An NHS Trust and Others v Y and Another SC 30-Jul-2018
The court was asked whether a court order must always be obtained before clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, which is keeping alive a person with a prolonged disorder of consciousness, can be withdrawn, or whether, in some circumstances, . .
Cited – N v ACCG and Others SC 22-Mar-2017
The local authority and a young man’s parents disputed his continued care, he having substantial incapacities. The parents wanted assistance caring for him on visits home. The LA declined to fund that support. The LA now argued that the CoP had not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.229048

Radia v Jefferies International Ltd (Costs): EAT 21 Feb 2020

In a Liability Decision which followed a full Merits Hearing, all of the Claimant’s complaints brought pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 by reference to the protected characteristic of disability were dismissed. The Respondent then applied for costs. In a further Decision which followed a Costs Hearing, the Employment Tribunal awarded the Respondent the whole of its costs of the litigation, subject to assessment. The principal bases of that Costs Decision were that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and that the Claimant either knew or ought reasonably to have known that; and that, on that account, he had also conducted the proceedings unreasonably, by bringing the claims and/or continuing with them after receipt of a costs warning letter to which he did not respond. The Employment Tribunal also found that, in respect of certain complaints, he had lied to, or misled the Tribunal; and it would in any event have awarded costs in respect of those particular complaints.
An appeal against the Costs Decision was allowed to proceed to a full Appeal Hearing on four grounds, all of which failed.
Ground 1 challenged a finding in the Costs Decision that, at the time of a discussion with the Respondent, about the possibility of his departing with a severance package, at which the Claimant had, for the first time, raised allegations of disability discrimination going back five years, he did not believe those allegations to have merit. However, that finding was properly made, drawing on the findings in the Liability Decision; and the Claimant had had a fair opportunity to address the point in evidence at the Liability Hearing, and to make submissions about it at the Costs Hearing.
Ground 2 contended that, if Ground 1 was well-founded, then the conclusions in the Costs Decision, that the Claimant ought to have known that his claims had no reasonable prospect of success, and, on that account, unreasonably pursued them, could not stand. However, this Ground failed because: (a) Ground 1 failed; (b) the awards of costs on those bases in any event stood on the independent footing that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, which the Claimant ought reasonably to have known; and (c) those latter findings were not, as such, challenged, and were, in any event, properly made without the Tribunal having wrongly relied upon hindsight.
Ground 3 challenged the Costs Decision’s reliance on findings that the Claimant had given false or misleading evidence on two particular issues. But these drew on findings in the Liability Decision, in respect of which the Claimant had been fairly cross-examined at the Liability Hearing, and which the Tribunal properly regarded as central to a sub-group of complaints.
Ground 4 challenged the conclusions that the Claimant acted unreasonably in continuing with his claims after receipt of the Grounds of Resistance and/or a later costs-warning letter. But, having regard to the reasons why Ground 2 failed, this Ground also failed.
[2020] UKEAT 0007 – 18 – 2102
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.649248

Free and others v British Steel Plc and Another: SCS 18 Jul 2003

(Outer House) The pursuer had sought damages from the defender, but failed to submit the claim for expenses. The defenders said they were prejudiced by the delay.
Held: ‘Comparing the prejudice the pursuers would suffer, were the motion to be refused, with that which the defenders will face, if the motion is granted, I am satisfied that I should exercise my discretion in favour of the pursuers and grant the motion.’
Lord Mackay Of Drumadoon
[2003] ScotCS 205
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – UCB Bank Plc v Dundas and Wilson SCS 1990
It would not be competent for the Court of Session to restrict the pursuers’ entitlement to a fraction or percentage of the sums brought out as being payable in terms of the accounts, after they had been taxed by the Auditor. . .
Cited – William Copland Taylor v Marshalls Food Group (2) OHCS 6-Nov-1998
The First Division held that section 5 had not authorised the Court to enact a Rule of Court that entitled a pursuer, who had lodged and beaten a ‘pursuer’s offer’, to payment of a sum equal to the taxed amount of the expenses of process. The Rule . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.184667

Agrimex Ltd v Tradigrain Sa and others: ComC 9 Jul 2003

Challenge was brought against the fees charged by the arbitrator, and in particular at the cost of the arbitrator bringing in a legally qualified draftsman.
Held: A draftsman’s task would not be himself to refine the arbitrator’s reasoning, but rather to express it as exactly as was necessary for the case. Such an appointment would be unnecessary in most cases, and particularly where the amount at issue was not great, but could apply where the issues were complex, although an assessor might be more appropriate. Antagonism and a legalistic approach would not of itself justify such an appointment, though the attitude of the parties in general could be taken into account. Old cases were not useful in such a context. The court would not say that the appointment was wrong, but the costs incurred were quite disproportionate and reduced accordingly.
The Honourable Mr Justice Thomas
[2003] EWHC 1656 (Comm), Times 12-Aug-2003, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 537
Bailii
Arbitration Act 1996 28(2) 28(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Threlfall v Fanshawe 1850
There was a dispute about the entitlement of a lay arbitrator, who had been appointed by order of the Court to determine a boundary dispute between two estates, to charge for the attorney he had employed.
Held: ‘Where parties appoint a lay . .
Cited – Re Collyer-Bristow and Co 1901
The issue was whether a bill of the solicitors employed to advise the Umpire was taxable and, if so, in which Division of the High Court . .
Cited – Transcatalana de Commercio SA v Incobrassa Industrial e Commercial Brazileira SA 1995
. .
Cited – Kurkjian v Marketing Exchange No 2 1986
If a tribunal employs a lay or legal draftsman, the tribunal has a duty to satisfy themselves that the fee he charges is fair and reasonable; the extent of the work required of the tribunal in examining the fees charged by the lawyer is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.184651

Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and Others: TCC 10 Dec 2009

Ramsey J
[2009] EWHC 3281 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others ChD 25-Jan-2008
The claimants sought an injunction in nuisance, saying that the defendants had agreed to use all reasonable endeavours to avoid causing a nuisance to them in demolition works on their neighbouring land.
Held: The injunction should be granted. . .
See Also – Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v Pinnacle Ltd and others QBD 13-Jun-2008
. .
See Also – Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others TCC 13-Jun-2008
The claimants sought to restrain as a nuisance the erection of the tallest building in Europe on neighbouring land. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.431626

James v The Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA): Admn 19 May 2010

The defendant had pleaded guilty to three charges of causing unnecessary cruelty to animals. She appealed against an order for unpaid community work and the costs of pounds 38,644. The horses had been removed by the Society after a veterinary surgeon said it was necessary under the 2006 Act. The defendant said that the removal was unlawful since the section required the opinion to be certified, but it had been given orally. The issue is one of construction as to whether the word ‘certifies’ means certifies in writing.
Held: Keith J said: The word ‘certifies’ has to be construed, of course, in accordance with its ordinary meaning, subject to the context of the statutory provisions in which it appears. The word connotes a degree of formality, and the proposition that the degree of formality which is necessary is that the certification be in writing is, in my view, supported by section 18(10) of the Act, which provides, so far as is material: ‘A veterinary surgeon may examine and take samples from an animal for the purpose of determining whether to issue a certificate under subsection . . (5) with respect to the animal.’ However: ‘it would, I think, be very surprising if section 18(5) were to be construed in a way which permits a police officer to act so as to put an animal out of its distress before the veterinary surgeon arrives, but does not permit the animal to be relieved of its suffering after the veterinary surgeon arrives, even though the veterinary surgeon thinks that the animal is suffering, but for one reason or another does not put that into writing.’ and ‘ I have concluded that section 18(5) does not require the certification to be in writing, and that the seizure and detention of Mrs James’s horses was not unlawful.’
Keith J
[2011] EWHC 1642 (Admin), (2011) 175 JP 485
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006
England and Wales

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.441397

Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd v Maxwell: EAT 19 Oct 2001

The appellant company appealed an order for costs against it after an interim application for some issues to be dealt with a preliminary had been rejected. The applicants had sought a review of decisions which were not subject to such a review under the Regulations.
Held: The order for costs was properly made.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
EAT/1231/01
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2001 (SI 2001/1171) 13
England and Wales

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.168371

George Munro, of Culcairn, and Captain Donald Macneil v Kenneth Mackenzie, of Auchtiedonald, and Others: HL 31 Mar 1724

Costs and Expences – One of the defenders in a spuilzie, who was an officer in the king’s service during the rebellion, being assoilzied, petitions for his expences, which are refused by the Court, but the judgment is reversed upon appeal, and the Court is ordered to tax and ascertain his costs.
Witness – In a spuilzie brought against the leader of a party, on the king’s side during the rebellion, persons belonging to that party were valid witnesses for the defender.
Spuilxie – The Court having found the leader of said party liable in damages, without hearing him upon the relevancy; their judgment is reversed, and they are ordered to hear the defender on the relevancy.
[1724] UKHL Robertson – 477, (1724) Robertson 477
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.553901

Ulster Bank Ltd v Fisher and Fisher: ChNI 21 Dec 1998

Girvan J
[1999] NI 68, [1998] NICh 7
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.202013

Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd: ChD 1987

Vinelott J doubted whether a receiver’s remuneration could be recovered as litigation costs
Vinelott J
[1987] 1 WLR 225, [1987] 2 All ER 40
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Boehm v Goodall ChD 24-Nov-1910
Receiver – Partnership Action – Consent Order appointing Receiver and Manager
– Payments by Receiver – Insufficiency of Assets – Indemnity – Claim
against Partners personally.
In an action for dissolution of partnership a receiver . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd CA 1988
Nourse LJ doubted whether a receiver’s remuneration could be recovered as litigation costs. . .
Cited – Capewell v Revenue and Customs and Another HL 31-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.248336

Boehm v Goodall: ChD 24 Nov 1910

Receiver – Partnership Action – Consent Order appointing Receiver and Manager
– Payments by Receiver – Insufficiency of Assets – Indemnity – Claim
against Partners personally.
In an action for dissolution of partnership a receiver and manager was, by a consent order, appointed to carry on the partnership business with a view to its sale as a going concern. In carrying on the business the receiver and manager made payments which the assets were insufficient to satisfy in full and claimed to be indemnified by the partners personally in respect of the balance due to him.
Held: that the receiver was an officer of the Court and could only look to the assets under the control of the Court for his indemnity.
Held: therefore, that he was not entitled to be indemnified by the partners personally, and that the fact that the order appointing him was made by consent of the partners did not put him in any better position as against them
Warrington J said: ‘Such a receiver and manager [that is one appointed by the court] is not the agent of the parties, he is not a trustee for them, and they cannot control him. He may, as far as they are concerned, incur expenses or liabilities without their having a say in the matter. I think it is of the utmost importance that receivers and managers in this position should know that they must look for their indemnity to the assets which are under the control of the court. The court itself cannot indemnify receivers, but it can, and will, do so out of the assets, so far as they extend, for expenses properly incurred; but it cannot go further. It would be an extreme hardship in most cases to parties to an action if they were to be held personally liable for expenses incurred by receivers and managers over which they have no control. But the receiver here says that this is not the ordinary case, because the judgment appointing him was by consent and, by consenting, all the parties have impliedly requested him to incur these liabilities. In my opinion that fact makes no difference at all. If I were to accede to that argument, I should have to hold in every case that the person who puts the court in motion and gets a receiver appointed would have to indemnify the receiver. The fact that the order was made by consent does not, in my opinion, distinguish this case from the numerous cases in which orders have been made without consent.’
Warrington J
[1911] 1 Ch 155, [1910] UKLawRpCh 134
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In Re Andrews CA 25-Feb-1999
The defendant and his son had been charged with offences relating to their joint business, and restraint orders were made. The son was convicted, but the defendant was acquitted and awarded his costs out of central funds. The taxing officer held . .
Cited – Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd ChD 1987
Vinelott J doubted whether a receiver’s remuneration could be recovered as litigation costs . .
Cited – Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd CA 1988
Nourse LJ doubted whether a receiver’s remuneration could be recovered as litigation costs. . .
Cited – Capewell v Revenue and Customs and Another HL 31-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.231652

Gorgeous Beauty Ltd v Liu and Others (Costs): ChD 2 Oct 2014

Arnold J
[2014] EWHC 3093 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Main Judgment – Gorgeous Beauty Ltd v Liu and Others ChD 22-Sep-2014
The claimant company was owned by members of a family and was formed to take ownership of land in Taiwan. The family members disputed whether property was held for the company or in trust for one particular family member.
Held: Fraud being . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.537247

Walter Lilly and Company Ltd v Mackay and Another: TCC 15 Mar 2012

The claimant sought disclosure of papers prepared on behalf of the defendant by a claims consultant, who in turn asserted a privilege from production akin to that of a legal professional.
Akenhead J
[2012] EWHC 649 (TCC), 141 ConLR 102, [2012] BLR 249, [2012] 6 Costs LO 809
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.452425

MG Rover Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 19 Nov 2008

COSTS – Indemnity costs – Claim by unsuccessful Appellant – Appellant had appealed against refusal to allow input tax relief – Last minute change of argument by Respondents – Appellant withdrew appeal – Whether Appellants entitled to costs – No – VAT Trib rules r.29(1)
[2008] UKVAT V20871
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 August 2021; Ref: scu.301855

Fayad, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 31 Jan 2018

[2018] EWCA Civ 54
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Fayad, Regina (on The Application of) v Home Office CA 15-Jan-2016
‘application for permission to appeal. The Appellant’s case is that he is a British overseas citizen and entitled to a British passport. He says he was born to Lebanese national parents on 5 February 1961 in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone was then a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office Admn 28-Jul-2021
Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory
The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. The parties agreed that the steps taken for later broadcasts had satisfied the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.604143

London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley Crawford and Chester: CA 30 May 1884

Where an action is brought against a solicitor who defends it in person and obtains judgment, he is entitled upon taxation to the same costs as if he had employed a solicitor, except in respect of items which the fact of his acting directly renders unnecessary.
Judgment of the Queen’s Bench Division (12 Q. B. D. 452) affirmed.
Bowen LJ said: ‘only legal costs which the Court can measure are to be allowed, and that such legal costs are to be treated as expenses necessarily arising from the litigation and necessarily caused by the course which it takes. Professional skill and labour are recognised and can be measured by the law; private expenditure of labour and trouble by a layman cannot be measured. It depends on the zeal, the assiduity, or the nervousness of the individual.’
Bowen LJ
(1884) 13 QBD 872, [1884] UKLawRpKQB 115
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Malkinson v Trim CA 20-Sep-2002
The solicitor had successfully defended proceedings brought against him personally, but employing his own firm to represent him. He sought his costs. The claimant disputed his right to costs.
Held: The claimant had served a notice of . .
Cited – Khan v Lord Chancellor QBD 17-Jan-2003
The applicant was a barrister. He had been tried and acquitted of criminal charges, and had been awarded cost from central funds. He appealed from a refusal of a claim for payment for the time he spent in preparation.
Held: The applicant was . .
Cited – Boyd and Hutchinson v Joseph ChD 14-Mar-2003
The claimant had been awarded costs, and sought to charge her time as a solicitor.
Held: The claimant had only a limited practicing certificate, which would allow her to work for others only without charge. She could not for these proceedings . .
Cited – Sisu Capital Fund Ltd and others v Tucker and others 28-Oct-2005
The Defendants were accountants who had been sued through their partnership in KPMG. They had been granted a order for their costs. They sought payment for the time they had spent prersonally in preparing their defences.
Held: As professionals . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.180907

CPRE Kent v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: SC 30 Jul 2021

On application for statutory review of a planning decision in which the claimant was refused permission to proceed, the court was now asked whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding as a practice that, in the context of such a refusal of permission, where two defendants and an interested party each incurred expense in preparing a separate acknowledgement of service and summary grounds for contesting the claim, each had a prima facie entitlement to its costs.
Lord Reed (President), Lord Hodge (Deputy President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows
[2021] UKSC 36
Bailii, Bailii Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
England and Wales

Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.666311

Richardson v Rusbridger: 10 Mar 1855

A stock legacy bequeathed to several in succession, was appropriated by the executors, and the residue paid over. In a suit between the remainder-man and the executors alone, the legacy was transferred into Court, and the costs of suit were paid thereout. The tenant for life afterwards filed a claim to have the amount of costs recouped out of the residue. It was dismissed with costs.
[1855] EngR 296, (1855) 20 Beav 136, (1855) 52 ER 554
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.292218

Cartier International Ag and Others v British Telecommunications Plc and Another: SC 13 Jun 2018

The respondent ISP companies had been injuncted to stop the transmission of websites which infringed the trade mark rights of the claimants. The ISPs now appealed from the element of the order that they pay the claimants’ costs of implementing the website-blocking order.
Held: The appeal succeeded as to the costs of compliance with the injunction. The European Directives made no reference to the costs of compliance with such orders, and the issue was one of English Law which would by default ask as to the legal distribution of risks as found by the court. There was no basis for the claimant to look beyond the infringers for their costs, and the rights holders should indemnify the ISP for the costs of compliance. As to the litigation costs, the ISPs had chosen to make this a test case, and took the associated responsibility.
Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
UKSC 2016/0159, [2018] UKSC 28, [2018] ECC 29, [2018] EMLR 22, [2018] 4 All ER 373, [2018] ECDR 16, [2018] ETMR 32, [2018] 1 WLR 3259, [2018] Bus LR 1417, [2018] WLR(D) 354, [2018] RPC 11
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 Jan 30 am Video, SC 2018 Jan 30 pm
E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC, Information Security Directive 2001/29/EC, Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Cartier International Ag and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others CA 6-Jul-2016
Appeals by five English internet service providers against orders which required them to block or attempt to block access by their customers to certain websites which were advertising and selling counterfeit copies of the respondents’ goods in . .
Cited – Upmann v Elkan CA 5-Jun-1871
The defendant freight forwarding agent was innocently in possession of consignments of counterfeit cigars in transit to Germany through a London dock. The action was not for discovery, but for an order restraining the forwarder from releasing the . .
Cited – Singularis Holdings Ltd v Pricewaterhousecoopers PC 10-Nov-2014
(Bermuda) Liquidators of two companies sought information from the companies’ former auditors, and in particular their working papers. . .
Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
Cited – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications Plc ChD 28-Jul-2011
The claimant rights holders sought an order to require the defendant broadband internet provider to deny access to its users to websites which were said to facilitate the distribution of infringing copies of their films. An earlier judgment had . .
Cited – Banker’s Trust v Shapira CA 1980
Enforcement through innocent third party bank
Two forged cheques, each for USD500,000, had been presented by two men and as a result USD1,000,000 had been transferred to accounts in their names. The plaintiff sought to trace assets through the banks involved.
Held: The court approved the . .
Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
Cited – Clipper Maritime Co Ltd v Mineralimportexport 1981
Innocent third parties, such as port authorities required by a freezing order to detain a vessel in port, are entitled to an indemnity. . .
Cited – Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL CA 1982
The plaintiffs, an overseas company with an office in London had been defrauded here. They sought and obtained Mareva injunctions against defendants and against six clearing banks. The banks sought clarification of their duties.
Held: The . .
Cited – Tommy Hilfiger Licensing And Others v Delta Center a.s ECJ 7-Jul-2016
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Directive 2004/48/EC – Enforcement of intellectual property rights – Notion of ‘intermediary whose services are being used by a third . .
Cited – Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2) CA 19-Dec-2001
The respondent operated a web site which contained a chat room. Defamatory remarks were made by a third party through the chat room, and the claimant sought details of the identity of the poster. The respondent refused to do so without a court . .
Cited – UPC Telekabel Wien v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH ECJ 27-Mar-2014
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Information society – Directive 2001/29/EC – Website making cinematographic works available to the public without the . .
Cited – Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
Cited – Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV ECJ 16-Feb-2012
ECJ Information society – Copyright – Internet – Hosting service provider – Processing of information stored on an online social networking platform – Introducing a system for filtering that information in order . .
Cited – L’Oreal SA, Lancome parfums et beaute and Cie, Laboratoire Garnier and Cie, L’Oreal (UK) Limited v eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL, eBay (UK) Limited ECJ 12-Jul-2011
ECJ Grand Chamber – Trade marks – Internet – Offer for sale, on an online marketplace targeted at consumers in the European Union, of trade-marked goods intended, by the proprietor, for sale in third States – . .
Cited – Miller Brewing Co v Ruhl Enterprises Ltd and another ; Miller Brewing Co v Mersey Docks and Harbour Co amd Others ChD 23-May-2003
The claimant obtained an interim injunction in respect of alleged infringement of its trade marks in beers brewed under licence by the respondents. They said the beers produced were of inferior quality, and threatened the brand. The grant of such . .
Cited – Scarlet Extended Sa v Societe Belge Des Auteurs Compositeurs Et Editeurs (SABAM) ECJ 14-Apr-2011
ECJ Opinion – Information Society – Intellectual property rights – Directive 2004/48/EC – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29/EC – Illegal downloading on the Internet – Peer to peer through software . .
Cited – Google France and Google v Louis Vuitton Malletier (Intellectual Property) ECJ 23-Mar-2010
ECJ Trade marks Internet Search engine – Keyword advertising – Display, on the basis of keywords corresponding to trade marks, of links to sites of competitors of the proprietors of those marks or to sites . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.617855

Lowin v W Portsmouth and Co: QBD 20 Jun 2016

‘relatively narrow point about the construction of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘the CPR’). It is an appeal from an order of Costs Master Whelan (‘the Master’) dated 8 December 2015. He decided that the costs allowed to the appellant on provision assessment pursuant to rule 47.15(5) should be capped. The issue raised by the appeal is the relationship of that rule with rule 36.17(4).’
[2016] EWHC 2301 (QB), [2016] 5 Costs LO 719, [2017] CP Rep 1
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.666152

Cartus Corporation v Atlantic Mobility Ltd: QBD 22 Aug 2014

The parties had disputed the return of two shipping containers.
Richard Parkes QC
[2014] EWHC 2868 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Cartus Corporation Cartus Ltd v Siddell and Another QBD 16-Jul-2014
The court discharged an interim injunction granted within a defamation claim in turn within a dispute as to the return of two shipping containers and allegations of inflated invoices. . .
See Also – Cartus Corporation and Another v Sidell and Another QBD 24-Jul-2014
Reasons for non-continuance of without notice injunction. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.536029

Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters Ltd: QBD 20 Feb 1996

The choice of an expensive solicitor to conduct a case may be justified in several ways.
Coltart J
Times 20-Feb-1996
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Truscott v Truscott; Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters Ltd CA 31-Jul-1997
Mr Truscott (T), from Tunbridge Wells instructed local solicitors in county court proceedings about a maintenance payment order involving his ex-wife. Dissatisfied with his local solicitors he instructed a small firm of solicitors in central London. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.90616

Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd: CA 2 Dec 2015

Appeal by Edmondson against an Order dismissing Edmondson’s claim against Haven in respect of Haven’s conduct in settling on an inclusive basis personal injury claims directly with six clients of Edmondson with whom Edmondson had concluded conditional fee agreements, thereby depriving Edmondson of its costs. Haven submitted that the particular terms of the CFA Lite retainers created no contractual liability of the claimants for the charges, and there was nothing upon which an equitable security could be founded. Held The Court agreed that there was no such contractual liability, but it decided that the equitable jurisdiction to intervene could be extended far enough to enable the court to recognise and then enforce an interest of Edmondson under the RTA Protocol in receiving its fixed costs and charges as therein provided or, alternatively, an interest under an express provision in the retainers to sue in its client’s names for recovery of those charges from Haven, and that Haven knew of those interests. The Court ordered Haven to pay the charges allowable under the RTA Protocol to Edmondson, in addition to the settlement sums already paid to the claimants.
Laws, Elias, Lloyd-Jones LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1230, [2015] RTR 125, [2015] RTR 125, [2016] CP Rep 11, [2015] WLR(D) 496, [2016] 1 WLR 1385
Bailii, WLRD
The Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumers Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Khans Solicitor (A Firm) v Chifuntwe and Another CA 8-May-2013
C instructed the claimants to bring proceedings. They compromised those proceedings, the defendant agreeing to pay C’s costs. A bill was submitted but before it was paid C withdrew his instructions from his solicitors and accepted the defendant’s . .
Cited – In re the Estate of Fuld, decd (No. 4) 1968
The solicitor sought to exercise a lien for his costs over money paid direct to his client.
Held: The solicitor’s right exists over both the amount of a judgment in favour of the client, and the amount of an order for costs in favour of the . .
Cited – Welsh v Hole 6-Nov-1779
The plaintiff obtained judgment for pounds 20 and costs in a civil claim for assault, but then compromised the claim for a direct payment by the defendant of pounds 10. There was no collusion to defeat the solicitor’s right to payment of his bill. . .
Cited – Read v Dupper 13-Jun-1795
The defendant’s solicitor paid the plaintiff direct, after notice of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s interest, and had to pay again. Lord Kenyon began:
‘The principle by which this application is to be decided was settled long ago, namely that the . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.556265

Khans Solicitors v Chifuntwe and Another: QBD 24 Jul 2012

Mr Justice Mackay
[2012] EWHC 2108 (QB), [2012] 6 Costs LR 1047
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Khans Solicitor (A Firm) v Chifuntwe and Another CA 8-May-2013
C instructed the claimants to bring proceedings. They compromised those proceedings, the defendant agreeing to pay C’s costs. A bill was submitted but before it was paid C withdrew his instructions from his solicitors and accepted the defendant’s . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.463287

Khans Solicitors v Chifuntwe and Another: SCCO 17 Feb 2012

[2012] EWHC 90220 (Costs)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Khans Solicitor (A Firm) v Chifuntwe and Another CA 8-May-2013
C instructed the claimants to bring proceedings. They compromised those proceedings, the defendant agreeing to pay C’s costs. A bill was submitted but before it was paid C withdrew his instructions from his solicitors and accepted the defendant’s . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.516375

Ex Parte Bryant: 12 Aug 1815

Person arrested on his return from proving a debt at Guildhall, discharged with costs of application.
Though an order be made on a petition in bankruptcy, directing costs to be paid to the Petitioner personally, this does not take away the lien of the solicitor for his costs.
Vice Chancellor Plumer said: ‘I do not wish to relax the doctrine as to lien, for it is to the advantage of clients, as well as solicitors; for business is often transacted by solicitors for needy clients, merely on the prospect of having their costs under the doctrine as to lien.’
The Vice Chancellor also said, obiter, that knowledge of the solicitor’s lien on the part of the payer would be as effective as notice.
Plumer VC
[1815] EngR 982, (1815) 1 Madd 49, (1815) 56 ER 19
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.336792

Housemaker Services Ltd and Another v Cole and Another: ChD 26 Apr 2017

Appeal from limitation direction, and third party costs order: ‘in order to make it just to order a director to pay the costs of unsuccessful company litigation, it is necessary to show something more. This might be, for example, that the claim is not made in good faith, or for the benefit of the company, or it might be that the claim has been improperly conducted by the director.’
Paul Matthews HHJ
[2017] EWHC 924 (Ch)
Bailii
Companies Act 2006 1028
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Housemaker Services Ltd v Cole and Another ChD 7-Apr-2017
Part 8 Claim seeking a direction from the Court that the period of 608 days from November 2014 to July 2016, during which it was struck off the register and thus ceased to exist, should be discounted for the purposes of limitation in relation to the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Goknur v Aytacli CA 13-Jul-2021
Third Party Costs – Director of Insolvent Company
(Organic Village) The Court considered the circumstances Limited in which a director and shareholder of an insolvent company may be personally liable for some or all of that company’s costs liabilities incurred in unsuccessful litigation, pursuant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.583680

Arklow Investments Ltd v Maclean: 19 May 2000

(High Court of New Zealand) The court considered the potential personal responsibility of a directors for costs incurred by the company in litigation: ‘Where a person is a major shareholder and dominant director in a company which brings proceedings, that alone will not justify a third party costs order. Something additional is normally warranted as a matter of discretion. The critical element will often be a fresh injection of capital for the known purpose of funding litigation . . the overall rationale [is] that it is wrong to allow someone to fund litigation in the hope of gaining a benefit without a corresponding risk that that person will share in the costs of the proceedings if they ultimately fail.’
Fisher J
(Unreported) 19 May 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Arklow Investments Ltd and Another v Maclean and Others PC 1-Dec-1999
PC (New Zealand) Land was offered for sale. A potential buyer, the appellant was approached by a merchant bank with a proposal for finance. When he sought finance elsewhere, a company associated with the bank . .

Cited by:
Cited – BE Studios Ltd v Smith and Williamson Ltd ChD 2-Dec-2005
The claimant company had failed in its action. The court was asked to make a costs order personally against the principal director of the claimant who had controlled the litigation and funded it. He responded that no impropriety had been shown on . .
Cited – Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 18-Apr-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order.
Held: The court only has jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Goknur v Aytacli CA 13-Jul-2021
Third Party Costs – Director of Insolvent Company
(Organic Village) The Court considered the circumstances Limited in which a director and shareholder of an insolvent company may be personally liable for some or all of that company’s costs liabilities incurred in unsuccessful litigation, pursuant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.237246

Mars UK Ltd v Teknowledge Ltd: PatC 11 Jun 1999

The public policy defence of a right to repair by creation of ‘spare parts’ to a copyright infringement claim depended upon the right being so clear that no right thinking person would quarrel with it. An equitable duty of confidence falls on a recipient of information where any reasonable person would see the receipt in these terms.
A payment on account of costs must be set at a level which the judge thinks is the minimum that the receiving party will recover on a detailed assessment
Jacob J
Times 23-Jun-1999, [1999] EWHC Patents 226, [1999] 2 Costs LR 44, [2000] FSR 138
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Goknur v Aytacli CA 13-Jul-2021
Third Party Costs – Director of Insolvent Company
(Organic Village) The Court considered the circumstances Limited in which a director and shareholder of an insolvent company may be personally liable for some or all of that company’s costs liabilities incurred in unsuccessful litigation, pursuant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.163100

Taylor v Pace Developments: CA 1991

Lloyd LJ said: ‘There is only one immutable rule in relation to costs, and that is that there are no immutable rules.’
Lloyd LJ baulked at the suggestion that every director who funded and controlled litigation on behalf of an insolvent company was liable to make a non-party costs order: ‘But it could not be right that in every such case he should be made personally liable for the costs, even if he knows that the company will not be able to meet the plaintiff’s costs, should the company prove unsuccessful. That would be far too great an inroad on the principle of limited liability. I do not say that there may not be cases where a director may not properly be liable for costs. Thus he might be made liable if the company’s best defence is not bona fide, as, for example, where the company has been advised and there is no defence, and the proceedings are defended out of spite, or for the sole purpose of causing the plaintiffs to incur irrecoverable costs. No doubt there will be other cases. But such cases must necessarily be rare. In the great majority of cases the directors of an insolvent company which defends proceedings brought against it should not be a personal risk of costs. ‘
Lloyd LJ
[1991] BCC 406
Supreme Court Act 1981 51
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – BE Studios Ltd v Smith and Williamson Ltd ChD 2-Dec-2005
The claimant company had failed in its action. The court was asked to make a costs order personally against the principal director of the claimant who had controlled the litigation and funded it. He responded that no impropriety had been shown on . .
Cited – Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson CA 4-May-1993
Nine rules were set out for allowing a costs order against someone who is not a party to the action. Such orders should be exceptional. The normal rule is that witnesses in either civil or criminal proceedings enjoy immunity from any form of civil . .
Cited – Weatherford Global Products Ltd v Hydropath Holdings Ltd and Others TCC 10-Oct-2014
Application by successful party to join a third party so as to make costs order against him. . .
Cited – Goknur v Aytacli CA 13-Jul-2021
Third Party Costs – Director of Insolvent Company
(Organic Village) The Court considered the circumstances Limited in which a director and shareholder of an insolvent company may be personally liable for some or all of that company’s costs liabilities incurred in unsuccessful litigation, pursuant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.237247

Systemcare (UK) Ltd v Services Design Technology Ltd and Another: CA 11 May 2011

The claimant having obtained judgment in an action against the defendant company when it was solvent, and the case having become disproportionate through the dishonest actions of the owner of the defendant, the defendant company then being put into an insolvent liquidation, with inadequate explanations as to the destiny of its assets, obtained a third party costs order against the defendant’s owner, who now appealed.
Held: A non-party costs order should not be made where the relevant costs would have been incurred anyway without the involvement of the non-party.
Lewison J noted: ‘As with Balcombe LJ’s classification, these principles are guidance not rules. As Longmore LJ said in Petromec (ss 12) Lord Brown’s words are emphatically not a statute. The ultimate question is whether it is just to make the order. It is wrong to treat the reported cases as providing a comprehensive check list of factors which must be present in every case before the discretion can be exercised in a particular case. What may be sufficient to justify the exercise of the discretion in one case should not be treated as a necessary factor for the exercise of the discretion in a different case: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Aurum Marketing Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 224, [2002] BCC 31 (Mummery LJ).’
Ward, Lloyd, LJJ, Lewison J
[2011] EWCA Civ 546, [2011] 4 Costs LR 666, [2012] 1 BCLC 14
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Goknur v Aytacli CA 13-Jul-2021
Third Party Costs – Director of Insolvent Company
(Organic Village) The Court considered the circumstances Limited in which a director and shareholder of an insolvent company may be personally liable for some or all of that company’s costs liabilities incurred in unsuccessful litigation, pursuant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.439653

Gardiner v FX Music Limited: ChD 27 Mar 2000

Geoffrey Vos QC faced an application for an order for costs against a third party. He reminded himself: ‘The court must ask whether, in all the circumstances, it is just to exercise the power under s.51 to make the non-party liable for the costs (or part of the costs) of the litigation. Whatever the limits of the court’s discretion to order sole or guiding director of an insolvent company to pay the costs of an action brought by or against that company, it is clear that such discretion may be exercised as in circumstances in which: –
1 the director had the management of the litigation on behalf of the company; and
2 the director acted improperly in conducting the litigation.
There may be many categories of relevant impropriety. But such impropriety must be of a serious nature. I have no doubt, however, that sufficient impropriety might be shown if the director:
a) deliberately pursues a concocted claim or defence, knowing it to be false; or
b) swears false evidence in support of such a claim or defence with the intention of misleading the Court’.
Geoffrey Vos QC
27 March 2000, unreported
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Goknur v Aytacli CA 13-Jul-2021
Third Party Costs – Director of Insolvent Company
(Organic Village) The Court considered the circumstances Limited in which a director and shareholder of an insolvent company may be personally liable for some or all of that company’s costs liabilities incurred in unsuccessful litigation, pursuant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.665983