Category: Costs

Schmid v Landeskammer Fur Land- Und Forstwirtschaft In Steiermark (Taxation- Order): ECJ 4 Mar 2021

Taxation of costs
[2021] EUECJ C-514/18P-DEP_CO, ECLI:EU:C:2021:180
Bailii
European
Citing:
See Also – Schmid v Landeskammer Fur Land- Und Forstwirtschaft In Steiermark (Taxation- Order) ECJ 17-Oct-2019
Appeal – European Union trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 15 – Concept of’ genuine use ‘- Requirement to use the mark in accordance with its essential function . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.664089

Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v Armstrong and Another: CA 1 Jul 2021

Where insurers and insured jointly retain solicitors and a barrister, and can therefore each claim joint retainer privilege (‘JRP’) in the documents created, if the insured assigns its professional negligence claims against the solicitors and barrister to X, is X (as the insured’s successor in title) entitled to disclosure of the files covered by JRP, or does the insurer have the right to claim privilege against the successor in title, thereby preventing X from accessing the documents? The answer would, on the face of it, appear to be plainly in favour of disclosure to X. However, in this case, the issue has become mired in a certain amount of factual complexity and a good deal of suspicion and bitterness between the parties, the consequence of group litigation gone wrong and large amounts of costs which have not been recovered.
[2021] EWCA Civ 978
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.663571

Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another (No 2): QBD 28 Apr 2020

Chamberlain J discussed the reactions to his draft judgment: ‘This judgment, exactly as it appears above, was produced in draft in the usual way and sent, under embargo, to the parties for their editorial corrections. Professional lawyers ought to know that the circulation of draft judgments for this purpose should not be taken as a pretext to reargue the case. It has been said on many occasions that an invitation to go beyond typographical and other minor corrections and reconsider the substance should be made only in the most exceptional circumstances: see e.g. Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd (Note) [2008] 1 WLR 1589, [49]-[51] (Smith LJ); R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) [2011] QB 218, [4] (Lord Judge CJ); In Re I (Children) [2019] 1 WLR 5822, [25]-[41]. As King LJ put in in the latter case, at [41], ‘a judge’s draft judgment is not an ‘invitation to treat’, nor is it an opportunity to critique the judgment or to enter into negotiations with the judge as to the outcome or to reargue the case in an attempt to water down unpalatable findings’.’
Chamberlain J
[2020] EWHC 1017 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another QBD 24-Mar-2020
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Macom Gmbh v Bozeat and Others ChD 21-Jun-2021
Order regulating company’s affairs
COMPANY – Unfair prejudice – Petitioner 60% shareholder – Respondents 40% shareholders – Alleged breaches of director’s duties and failures to observe Shareholders’ Agreement – Undermining company’s corporate governance – Appropriate remedy – . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.650581

Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another: QBD 24 Mar 2020

Chamberlain J
[2020] EWHC 704 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another (No 2) QBD 28-Apr-2020
Chamberlain J discussed the reactions to his draft judgment: ‘This judgment, exactly as it appears above, was produced in draft in the usual way and sent, under embargo, to the parties for their editorial corrections. Professional lawyers ought to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.649917

Brackenbank Lodge Ltd v Peart and Others: HL 26 Jul 1996

The court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal following the discovery of a very ancient report of a court hearing on the same issues. The Peart defendant had failed to disclose to his lawyers the existence of the judgment, and he should expect to be penalised in the costs of all parties.
Times 26-Jul-1996
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Brackenbank Lodge Ltd v Peart and Others CA 4-Jun-1993
A right to stint, a grazing right, defeated an assertion of an interest in the freehold, and the stint holders were awarded a proprietary interest in the moor as tenants in common. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2021; Ref: scu.78537

Regina v Justices of Luton Family Proceedings Court; Her Honour Judge Pearce of Luton County Court; Director of Social Services of Bedfordshire County Council ex parte Abdul Rahman and Azra Bi: Admn 16 Dec 1996

In the course of urgent children proceedings, counsel advised solicitors inappropriately to seek judicial review of a court decision. The application was persisted with despite warnings from the respondents that they intended to seek a wasted costs order against the solicitor and counsel personally. Such an order was made, and appealed.
Held: The proposition that a solicitor who acts on counsel’s advice must bear responsibility for that advice in all circumstances cannot be supported. Earlier orders had not been entirely correctly obtained. The local authority had made a decision which would have made any proceedings unnecessary, but did not communicate it to the solicitors. The order against the solicitor could not stand. Similarly the procedure for claiming an order against counsel had not been followed. Both orders were set aside.
The Master Of The Rolls (Lord Woolf) Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Chadwick
[1996] EWHC Admin 368
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 51, Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 4
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Locke v Camberwell Health Authority CA 23-May-1991
The court discussed the relative duties of solicitor and counsel. Taylor LJ set out the principles that: 1) In general a solicitor, is entitled to rely upon the advice of counsel properly instructed;
2) For a solicitor, without special . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 July 2021; Ref: scu.136916

Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd and Others: ChD 20 Jul 2020

Judgment on applications by the First to Third Defendants for security for costs. The issue in dispute is not the question of security as such, since the Claimant, which is in administration, has agreed to provide security to all the Defendants. However, the First to Third Defendants seek security at a higher level than the 65% of their costs estimate which has been agreed by P4U with all the other Defendants. That is because these three Defendants submit that security should be ordered on the basis of a potential award of indemnity costs. P4U contends that this is inappropriate and that the standard basis, as applied in respect of the other Defendants, should be applied.
[2020] EWHC 1943 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd and Others ChD 17-Jul-2020
Various aspects of disclosure sought by the Claimant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2021; Ref: scu.652769

Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd (Nos 1 and 2): ChD 1980

A claim was made against a trustee for compensation for losses incurred during the administration of the trust.
Held: For a court to order an account by a trustee on the basis of wilful default, and make the defendant liable not only for assets which have come to their hands but also in respect of assets which ought to have come to their hands, the claimant must plead and prove at least one act of wilful default. Higher standards may be expected of professional trustees.
Brightman J considered the nature of the remedy of restitution: ‘the so-called restitution which the [trustee] must now make to the plaintiffs . . is in reality compensation for loss suffered by the plaintiffs . . not readily distinguishable from damages except with the aid of a powerful legal microscope.’ and ‘The trustee’s obligation is to restore to the trust estate the assets of which he has deprived it.’ and
‘The bank, as trustee, was bound to act in relation to the shares and to the controlling position which they conferred, in the same manner as a prudent man of business. The prudent man of business will act in such manner as is necessary to safeguard his investment. He will do this in two ways. If facts come to his knowledge which tell him that the company’s affairs are not being conducted as they should be, or which put him on enquiry, he will take appropriate action. Appropriate action will no doubt consist in the first instance of enquiry of and consultation with the directors, and in the last but most unlikely resort, the convening of a general meeting to replace one or more directors. What the prudent man of business will not do is to content himself with the receipt of such information on the affairs of the company as a shareholder ordinarily receives at annual general meetings. Since he has the power to do so, he will go further and see that he has sufficient information to enable him to make a responsible decision from time to time either to let matters proceed as they are proceeding, or to intervene if he is dissatisfied.’
The normal order in hostile litigation is for costs to be taxed on a standard basis.
A proper rate of interest to be awarded, in the absence of special circumstances, to compensate beneficiaries and trust funds for non-receipt from a trustee of money that ought to have been received was that allowed from time to time on the Short Term Investment Account, a rate which may be taken to be not more favourable than base rate less 0.5 per cent.
Brightman J
[1980] Ch 515
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Malhotra v Dhawan CA 26-Feb-1997
There had been litigation as to the payment due on fees earned during the partnership. One party had destroyed the evidence which would have settled many issues. The court discussed the principle that it should presume all against a destroyer of . .
Cited – Jones and others v Firkin-Flood ChD 17-Oct-2008
The trustees had contracted to sell shares in a private company held within the estate. A family member now claimed that they were held in trust after a settlement of a possible challenge to the will based in lack of testamentary capacity and undue . .
Cited – Carlisle and Cumbria United Independent Supporters’ Society Ltd v CUFC Holdings Ltd and Others CA 5-May-2010
The claimant supporters’ club had brought an action to prevent a substantial shareholder in the first defendant company from selling off land owned by the club for no consideration. The parties had reached a settlement after a protracted claim . .
Cited – AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co Solicitors SC 5-Nov-2014
Bank not to recover more than its losses
The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.193790

Nicolson, Regina (on The Application of) v Tottenham Magistrates and Another: Admn 6 May 2015

The court considered the proper approach on the award of costs on enforcement proceedings taken by local authorities seeking payment of unpaid council tax.
Andrews DBE J
[2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 204, [2015] PTSR 1045
Bailii, WLRD
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No.613)
England and Wales

Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.546411

Elithorn v Poulter and Others (Costs): CA 11 Dec 2008

Rimer LJ, Rix LJ, Wilson LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1626
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Main Judgment – Elithorn v Poulter and others CA 11-Dec-2008
A house had been bought in joint names, but one owner had died. The deceased had contributed the full price. Her executors said that the couple had intended initially that on the sale of the others property, he would contribute, but this never . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.341653

Lord v Wardle: 25 Apr 1837

When property in land passes by a deed, the property in the deed passes with it.
An attorney who draws and attests a deed, conveying land from A. to B., is not allowed afterwards to say that the property in the land and deed did not pass.
Where a jury gave a general verdict for Defendant on three issues, having been mis-directed on one, the Court granted a new trial on payment of costs.
[1837] EngR 657, (1837) 3 Bing NC 680, (1837) 132 ER 572
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.313774

Kirin Amgen Inc and Another v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd and others: CA 27 Mar 2003

Aldous, Hale, Latham LJJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 524
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Kirin Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd and others CA 31-Jul-2002
The claimants sought damages for infringement of their patent. The defendants denied infringement, and sought a revocation of the patent.
Held: The patent concerned gene technology. Although an error had been made, the patent was valid, since . .

Cited by:
See Also – Kirin Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd and others CA 31-Jul-2002
The claimants sought damages for infringement of their patent. The defendants denied infringement, and sought a revocation of the patent.
Held: The patent concerned gene technology. Although an error had been made, the patent was valid, since . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.180725

SGI Legal Llp v Karatysz: QBD 11 Jun 2021

One of a series of cases in which individuals who have brought successful claims for damages arising out of road traffic accidents have sought an assessment of their solicitors’ bill of costs.
Mr Justice Lavender
[2021] EWHC 1608 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.663360

Din and Another v London Borough of Wandsworth: HL 25 Mar 1982

Costs Judgment
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Lowry, Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1982] 1 WLR 418
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Costs – Din (Taj) v Wandsworth London Borough Council HL 26-Nov-1981
The appellants had applied for emergency housing as homeless persons, anticipating loss of their secure accomodation after falling into arrears. The Council reject their application, but a County Court quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.541966

Leeds City Council v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 29 Jul 2014

UTTC COSTS – respondents successful in appeal – application for costs made four working days late – whether time limit should be extended – principles to be applied – UT Rules 2, 5, 10 – Mitchell, McCarthy and Stone and Denton considered – extension of time allowed
[2014] UKUT 350 (TCC), [2015] STC 168, [2014] BVC 531
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.535705

Elizabeth Dooly v The Great Northern Railway Company: 25 Nov 1854

Where the plaintiff sues in formi pauperis, and obtains a verdict, whatever be the amount recovered, nothing is to be allowed on taxation of costs in respect of fees to the plaintiff’s counsel or by way of remuneration for the services of the plaintiffs attorney.
[1854] EngR 946, (1854) 4 El and Bl 341, (1854) 119 ER 131
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.293803

Hepworth Building Products v Coal Authority: CA 2 Jul 1999

An offer to settle, expressly open only until the first day of the hearing at the Lands Tribunal could have no significance in the context of a re-hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal some years later. The early offer including the limitation had not been revived, and had no continuing effect in costs.
Times 09-Jul-1999, Gazette 20-Oct-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1749
Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 (1996 No 1022)
England and Wales

Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.146664

Horlock v Smith Horlock R Bennett Horlock v Priestley Priestley I: Horlock Yarde; Burford Yarde v Priestley: 4 May 1837

If a client, having paid his solicitor’s bill of costs, without pressure or undue influence, wishes afterwards to have it taxed, he must state in his petition, and prove by evidence, that the bill contains such grossly improper charges as furnish evidence of fraud; and the petition must point out the particular items to which that description applies, and those items must be proved by evidence to answer the description.
[1837] EngR 697, (1837) 2 My and Cr 495, (1837) 40 ER 728
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.313814

Scales v Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Costs): QBD 2 Jul 2020

Mr Justice Cavanagh
[2020] EWHC 1749 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Main Judgment – Scales v Motor Insurers’ Bureau QBD 2-Jul-2020
‘This is a quantum hearing in a personal injury case, in which I have to apply principles of Spanish law in order to assess the damages that are payable to the Claimant ‘ . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.652416

Golf Cafe Bars v West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Another (Compensation – Costs – Compensation Cases Heard Under The Tribunals Written Representations Procedure): UTLC 9 Mar 2021

COMPENSATION – COSTS – compensation cases heard under the Tribunal’s Written Representations procedure – application fee and determination fee awarded to claimant – costs of the reference claimed by litigant in person – Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 – costs awarded based on rate in CPR Practice Direction 46
[2021] UKUT 48 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.662170

Jill Louise Butcher v Timothy Edward Wolfe and John Robert Wolfe: CA 30 Oct 1998

The parties had been partners in a family farm. On dissolution there was a dispute as to apportionment of costs. An offer had been ‘without prejudice save as to costs’.
Held: Costs may be denied to a plaintiff who had received a Calderbank offer before proceedings but had refused to negotiate, even though she got more at trial. In matrimonial matters such an offer must be accompanied by full disclosure. An offer to settle made before an action and which was exceeded in the judgement for the plaintiff could still operate to deny the plaintiff costs where the court felt a reasonable plaintiff should have settled on that basis, or tried to negotiate.
Gazette 18-Nov-1998, Gazette 11-Nov-1998, Times 09-Nov-1998, [1999] 2FCR 165, [1998] EWCA Civ 1648
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Alan Michael Sugar v Terence Frederick Venables and Michael Joseph Limited (2) CA 17-Oct-1997
The appellant challenged an order for costs against him. He had begun defamation proceedings which were settled upon the terms of an offer without prejudice as to costs. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s substantial costs incurred . .
Cited – Calderbank v Calderbank CA 1975
Letter Without Prejudice Save as to Costs
Husband and wife disputed provision under 1973 Act, and a summons under section 17 of the 1882 Act. The wife had offered to transfer a house occupied by his mother, worth about pounds 12,000, in return for him leaving the matrimonial home. He . .
Cited – McDonnell v McDonnell CA 1977
In family proceedings, a costs letter had been written in the form suggested in Calderbank.
Held: The court accepted and endorsed the practice suggested by Cairns LJ. Ormrod LJ said: ‘The important factor which distinguishes this case is the . .
Cited – Cutts v Head and Another CA 7-Dec-1983
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining . .
Cited – C and H Engineering v F Klucznic and Sons Limited 1992
It is for a defendant to make a clear and unambiguous offer and nothing short of this will provide the protection against costs which is sought. . .
Cited – Roache v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 23-Nov-1992
In his libel action the plaintiff was awarded andpound;50,000 damages. The same sum had been paid into court, but he obtained additionally an injunction against further publication of the libel and on that account was awarded his costs by the judge . .
Cited – Singh v Parkfield Group Plc QBD 27-Jun-1994
An offer to settle must be backed by a payment into court in debt actions. The defendant here could have protected his position by a payment into court, and therefore a Calderbank offer was ineffective. . .

Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 December 2020; Ref: scu.145127

Alan Michael Sugar v Terence Frederick Venables and Michael Joseph Limited (2): CA 17 Oct 1997

The appellant challenged an order for costs against him. He had begun defamation proceedings which were settled upon the terms of an offer without prejudice as to costs. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s substantial costs incurred during a six-month period, after a large payment into court had been made and before it was accepted whilst a suitable form of undertaking was being considered. It was the basic contention of the unsuccessful plaintiff there that ‘in all circumstances it is incumbent upon the defendant seeking protection as to costs to make an unambiguous and unequivocal offer in terms capable of instant acceptance.’
Held: (Simon Brown LJ) ‘I would reject that contention. It involves, to my mind, an altogether too mechanistic approach to the issue of costs and is in any event irreconcilable with this court’s judgment in Roache. If the argument were sound the plaintiff would be free to ignore an express offer to negotiate an appropriate undertaking and be entitled to litigate on at the defendant’s expense until the undertaking came to be in a form which he was prepared to accept. Roache itself, in my judgment, demonstrates this to be wrong. There no offer whatever of an undertaking was made, indeed the application for an injunction was resisted, and yet an injunction having in fact then been granted, the defendants were nevertheless adjudged to have been the substantial winners. The real reason, as this court found, why the plaintiff there had fought on was to try to obtain greater damages than were on offer. In that he failed. That, French J found, was the substantial reason why this plaintiff too was prolonging these proceedings after the payment in.’
Simon Brown LJ
[1997] EWCA Civ 2509
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – Roache v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 23-Nov-1992
In his libel action the plaintiff was awarded andpound;50,000 damages. The same sum had been paid into court, but he obtained additionally an injunction against further publication of the libel and on that account was awarded his costs by the judge . .

Cited by:
Cited – Jill Louise Butcher v Timothy Edward Wolfe and John Robert Wolfe CA 30-Oct-1998
The parties had been partners in a family farm. On dissolution there was a dispute as to apportionment of costs. An offer had been ‘without prejudice save as to costs’.
Held: Costs may be denied to a plaintiff who had received a Calderbank . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 December 2020; Ref: scu.142907

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

Bankes LJ
[1919] WN 317
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. . .
    Gazette 08-Jan-98, Times 03-Dec-97, [1997] 1 WLR 1627, [1997] UKHL 53, [1998] 1 EGLR 99, [1998] 1 ALL ER 305, [1998] PNLR 197, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 39, [1998] CLC 116, [1998] 1 Costs LR 108

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.181342

Raftopoulou v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 13 Nov 2015

PROCEDURE – costs – whether the Tribunal has power to order a payment in respect of pro bono costs – s 194, Legal Services Act 2007; s 29, Tribunals, courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – held: no such power in the Tribunal – application refused
References: [2015] UKUT 630 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.558953

Sutton v Drax: 1815

References: (1815) 2 Phill 323
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser CA 28-May-1999 (Times 09-Jun-99, Gazette 16-Jun-99, , [1999] EWCA Civ 1520, [2000] PNLR 140)
    Three potential beneficiaries sought payment from a solicitor of the costs of resisting the grant of probate to a will, saying that he had owed them a duty of care to ensure that the testator did not execute a later will in circumstances in which he . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.195581

Wilkinson v Corfield: PD 26 Jan 1881

A legatee who has propounded a codicil and succeeded is entitled to the same costs as an executor under similar circumstances.
The defendant, the executor of the will of RC, had proved the will only.
The plaintiffs propounded a codicil. The Court having pronounced for the codicil, condemned the defendant in costs, and gave the plaintiffs also out of the estate such sum nomine expensarum as would cover the additional expenses.
References: (1881) 6 PD 27, [1881] UKLawRpPro 5, (1880-1881) LR 6 PD 27
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser CA 28-May-1999 (Times 09-Jun-99, Gazette 16-Jun-99, , [1999] EWCA Civ 1520, [2000] PNLR 140)
    Three potential beneficiaries sought payment from a solicitor of the costs of resisting the grant of probate to a will, saying that he had owed them a duty of care to ensure that the testator did not execute a later will in circumstances in which he . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.195582

Re Cutliffe’s Estate: CA 1959

References: [1959] P 6
Coram: Morris LJ, Hodson LJ
Ratio: In attacking the will, the unsuccessful defendants had pleaded undue influence as well as lack of due execution and want of knowledge and approval, but their evidence had been disbelieved. They complained that in awarding costs against them the court had not applied Spiers v English.
Held: The testator himself had not been responsible for the litigation. Morris LJ said: ‘Costs are always in the discretion of the court; but, without restricting or in any way making rigid the exercise of that discretion, the courts have given general guidance which will enable those embarking on litigation to know how, in particular cases, the discretion is likely to be exercised.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Spiers v English ([1907] P 122)
    The two main principles which should guide the court in determining that costs in an appropriate suit are not to follow the event are firstly where the testator or those interested in the residue had been the cause of the litigation and secondly, if . .
  • Cited – Mitchell v Gard ((1863) 3 Sw and Tr 275)
    The next of kin of the deceased, who had unsuccessfully opposed the will in a testamentary suit tried before Byles J and a jury, applied for their costs to be paid out of the estate.
    Held: Sir James Wilde said: ‘The basis of all rule on this . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Francis Hoff and others v Mary Atherton ChD ([2004] EWHC 2007 (Ch))
    A challenge to testamentary capacity falls within the second exception in Spiers v English and not the first. . .
  • Cited – Kostic v Chaplin and others ChD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2909 (Ch), Times 11-Jan-08)
    The claimant had brought contentious probate proceedings, and succeeded in establishing that the deceased had not had capacity to make the will. The defendant beneficiaries appealed an order for costs.
    Held: The costs of the trial itself . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 18 March 2019
Ref: 263527

London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley Crawford and Chester: 1884

References: (1884) 13 QBD 872
Ratio: A practising solicitor who represented himself in litigation was entitled to recover costs for his own time as if he had employed a solicitor.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Malkinson v Trim CA (Times 11-Oct-02, Gazette 17-Oct-02)
    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 (Times 28-Jan-03)
    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 Jennifer Joseph ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 413 (Ch), Gazette 15-May-03)
    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 (Times 04-Nov-05, Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2321 (Ch))
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 10 March 2019
Ref: 180907

Dickens v Dickens; 9 Mar 1859

References: [1859] EngR 391, (1859) 2 Sw & Tr 103, (1859) 164 ER 931
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: Wife’s Costs. – Wife’s Petition. – Taxed Costs during Suit – Practice – On taxation of wife’s costs in a petition for judicial separation pending suit, the registrar disallowed all costs incurred before actual proceedings taken against the husband, and various items charged for attendance on the wife’s father in connection with her case. On cause shewn against a rule nisi for a review of taxation :- The Court affirmed the registrar’s taxation as being in accordance with the practice of both the common law and ecclesiastical courts.

Last Update: 30-Jul-16
Ref: 287743

Drummond v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 13 May 2016

References: [2016] UKUT 221 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: UTTC PROCEDURE – COSTS – application by Respondents to set aside protective costs order in favour of Appellant – application granted – whether Upper Tribunal has power to make protective costs and costs capping orders – yes – procedure and criteria for protective costs and costs capping orders

Last Update: 29-Jul-16
Ref: 567352

In re Pitchford; 11 Jan 1924

References: [1924] 2 Ch 260
Ratio:
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 52, [2013] 4 All ER 887, [2013] Bus LR 1056, [2013] 2 BCLC 135, [2013] Pens LR 299, [2013] BCC 624, [2013] BPIR 866, [2013] WLR(D) 300, [2014] 1 AC 209, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2011/0259, SC Summary, SC, [2013] 3 WLR 504)
    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 – General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd -v- Carranza EAT (Bailii, [2014] UKEAT 0107_14_1010)
    EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
    UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
    The Employment Tribunal, by a majority, found that the Respondent was in breach of a duty to make . .
  • Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another -v- Gabriel SC (Bailii, [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, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2014/0026, SC, SC Summary, SC Video)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 06-Jul-16
Ref: 537714

Harris v Hamlyn; 12 Jun 1849

References: [1849] EngR 725 (A), (1849) 3 De G & Sm 470
Links: Commonlii
Ratio Where the solicitor to the Suitors’ Fund has been appointed to act, and acts as guardian for infant defendants in a foreclosure suit, at the request of the Plaintiff, under the 28th Order of October 1842, the Court upon making a decee of foreclosure will direct the Plaintiff to pay the guardian’s costs, and to add them to his own, even where tbe security is inadequate.

Last Update: 16-May-16
Ref: 299030

South Coast Shipping v Havant Borough Council; 21 Dec 2001

References: [2002] 3 All ER 779, [2001] EW Costs 16, [2001] EWHC 9017 (Costs)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mr Justice Pumfrey sitting with Assessors
With respect to privileged material produced to the Costs Judge, once a document is of sufficient importance to be taken into account in arriving at a conclusion as to recoverability, then, unless otherwise agreed, it must be shown to the paying party or the receiving party must content himself with other evidence. If the costs judge has seen documents and required the receiving party to elect between giving secondary evidence of the retainer and waiving the privilege, there was no incompatibility with the Convention. This does not mean the costs judge may put the receiving party to its election for every document, regardless of relevance. The paying party may be content to agree that the costs judge alone should see the privileged documents. Only where it is necessary and proportionate should the receiving party be put to his election. The redaction and production of privileged documents, or the adducing of further evidence, will lead to additional delay and increased costs.
CourtService The court considered the impact on detailed assessment proceedings of the European Convention on Human Rights, with particular relevance to the disclosure to the paying party of sensitive material relating to their bill of costs to which privilege attached. The European cases did not override the longstanding principle of privilege in English law, but the principle that a court should not decide issues after hearing and seeing only one side of the argument was a very powerful one. He indicated that much greater use should be made of Costs Judges and District Judges of paragraph 40.14 of the Costs Practice Direction in relation to the putting of receiving parties to their election as to how they proved particular issues of this nature.
However, on the facts, and because the Costs Judge from whom the appeal was brought had clearly considered all the relevant factors in coming to his decision that there had been no breach of the indemnity principle on the evidence available to him, the Judge dismissed the appeal, saying that to do otherwise would be to generate unfortunate and unnecessary satellite litigation.
This case is cited by:

  • Approved – Hollins -v- Russell etc CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 718, Times 10-Jun-03, Gazette 17-Jul-03, [2003] 1 WLR 2487)
    Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement.
    Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the . .

Last Update: 01-Oct-15 Ref: 182521

In Re Cabletel Installations Ltd; 1 Jul 2004

References: [2005] BPIR 28
Coram: Chief Registrar Baister
The court criticised the remuneration claimed by the insolvency office-holder were work had been carried out at too senior a level, and the calculation was an uncritical application of the time spent, and where there were more and lengthier meetings and excessive reviews than the administration warranted. Chief Registrar Baister set out the approach he would adopt to fixing the applicant administrators’ remuneration: ‘I shall examine the main work streams and some of their subcategories and consider the time spent and whether it was justified; I shall have regard, insofar as I can, to the level at which work has been done; I shall consider the benefit of the work done and, to any extent appropriate, whether it was necessary. I shall then look at the larger picture and consider the case in terms of value. In doing so I shall have regard to the factors set out in the rules and to other factors peculiar to this case. I shall bear in mind that time spent is a measure not of the value of the service rendered but of the cost of rendering it. I do not propose, therefore, to allow myself to be influenced to any real extent by the final figures which the administrators claim, since, it seems to me that, prima facie, they reflect the cost of time rather than the value of the service provided. I shall resolve any doubts I have against the administrators.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – In Re Independent Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) ([2003] 1 BCLC 640)
    Ferris J was required to consider the insolvency office-holders’ remuneration, assisted by a solicitor with wide insolvency experience, whose report sets out the general principles then accepted by the insolvency profession as the yardstick for . .
  • Cited – Mirror Group Newspapers Plc -v- Maxwell and Others (No 2) ChD (Times 15-Jul-97, [1998] 1 BCLC 638)
    Court reminded insolvency practitioners of fiduciary duties to creditors when refusing application for further payment on account of costs. Ferris J considered the principles applicable to fixing the remuneration of receivers of the estate of Robert . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Brook -v- Reed CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 331)
    The court was asked ‘What relation should the costs and remuneration bear to the circumstances, and in particular the size, of the bankruptcy?’
    Held: Though the judge should have made express reference to and placed reliance upon the Practice . .
  • Cited – Brook -v- Reed CA ([2012] 1 BCLC 379, [2011] BPIR 583, Bailii, [2011] BCC 423, [2011] EWCA Civ 331, [2012] BCLC 379, [2012] 1 WLR 419, [2011] 3 All ER 743, [2011] NPC 34, [2011] 4 Costs LR 622)
    The court was asked: ‘What relation should the costs and remuneration bear to the circumstances, and in particular the size, of the bankruptcy?’ The bankrupt had considered that the costs first awarded to the trustee in bankruptcy and the trustee’s . .

Last Update: 24-Sep-15 Ref: 430875

Attwood v Small; 12 Dec 1827

References: [1827] EngR 853, (1827) 2 Y & J 72, (1827) 148 ER 837 (A)
Links: Commonlii
Where a great number of exceptions were taken to an answer, and shortly before the argument the defendant submitted to answer them, in consequence of which, it was urged, that the answer was clearly evasive, and that the ordinary costs were greatly inadequate; yet the Court refused to give extra costs but reserved the consideration of them, until the hearing of the cause.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small And Others (Commonlii, [1827] EngR 659, (1827) 3 Car & P 208, (1827) 172 ER 389)
    An agreement, contained by itself less than 1080 words, but there was in it a stipulation that a clause in a previous agreement, which was duly stamped, should be taken as part of the new agreement.
    Held: That although with the clause referred . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small And Others (Commonlii, [1827] EngR 729, (1827) 7 B & C 390, (1827) 108 ER 768 (B))
    . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Small And Others -v- Attwood And Others (Commonlii, [1828] EngR 545, (1828) 2 Y & J 512, (1828) 148 ER 1021 (B))
    Amendment of pleadings . .
  • See Also – Small And Others -v- Attwood And Others (, Commonlii, [1832] EngR 776, (1831-1832) You 407, (1832) 159 ER 1051)
    Where a contract is entered into for the purchase of an estate by certain persons in their own names, but in fact on their own account, and also as agents for other parties, a bill to rescind the contract may be filed in the names of the agents and . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small and Others HL (Bailii, [1838] UKHL J14, 7 ER 684, Bailii, [1838] UKHL J60)
    The plaintiffs had bought land including iron mines from the defendants. They sought and were given explicit re-assurances about the mine’s capacity, but these proved false after the plaintiffs had begun to work the mine themselves.
    Held: . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small etc (, Commonlii, [1838] EngR 515, (1835-40) 6 Cl & Fin 232, (1838) 7 ER 684)
    . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small (, Commonlii, [1840] EngR 125, (1840) 1 Man & G 279, (1840) 133 ER 340)
    . .

Deepak Sitapuria v Moorzadi Khan; 10 Dec 2007

References: Unreported, 10 December 2007
Coram: HH Judge Stewart QC
(Liverpool County Court) In relation to provisions in the CPR dealing with uplift of fees in employer’s liability cases, a trial has not commenced for the purposes of the uplift in solicitor’s fees if a settlement is reached before the hearing of the case has started. As for the rule applicable to counsel, if a case settles on the day of a hearing but before it starts, the claim concludes within a period the start of which is the specified number of days before the date fixed for the commencement of the hearing and not ‘at trial’.
HH Judge Stewart QC disagreed with the judgment of Master Haworth in Dahele v Thomas Bates & Son Ltd [2007] EWCA 90072 (costs) in which he decided that a case ‘concludes at trial’ for the purpose of the rule relating to uplift in counsel’s fees if it settles on the day fixed for trial. He also disagreed with adopting this construction to interpret ‘at trial’ in the rule relating to solicitors as meaning on the day fixed for the hearing.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Amin and Another -v- Mullings and Another QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 278 (QB))
    The parties disputed the uplift applicable where a road traffic personal injury claim was settled on the day before the full trial, and whether ‘ the learned Recorder erred in holding that the claim concluded at trial because the Claimant’s claim . .

HLB Kidsons (A Firm) v Lloyds Underwriters (Policy No 621/Pkid00101) and others; Comc 22 Nov 2007

References: [2007] EWHC 2699 (Comm)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Gloster J
This case cites:

This case is cited by: