Category: Costs

Leighton, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor: Admn 19 Feb 2020

Judicial review is brought by the Claimant, to challenge an asserted decision of the Defendant not to extend Qualified One-Way Costs-Shifting to discrimination claims in the County Court and/or the Defendant’s failure to extend QOCS to such claims.

Judges:

Mr Justice Cavanagh

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 336 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.648264

PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v Systech International Ltd: CA 23 Oct 2012

The court considered the recoverability of the fees an arbitrator appointed under the 1996 Act, were the award had been determined unenforceable for a breach of the rules of natural justice.
Held: The appeal against an order for payment of he fees succeeded. The arbitrator had not fulfilled the contract for which he had been employed.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Davis, Treacy LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1371, [2012] WLR(D) 284, [2013] BUS LR 970

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Costs, Natural Justice

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465114

Simmons v Castle: CA 10 Oct 2012

The court amended its earlier judgment as to the overall increase in the level of damages to be awarded in personal injury cases.
The system enacted in the 1999 Act remains in force in relation to litigation brought pursuant to conditional fee agreements made before April 2013

Judges:

Igor Judge, Baron Judge LCJ, Lord Dyson MR, Sir Maurice Kay VP CA

Citations:

[2013] Med LR 4, [2013] 1 WLR 1239, [2013] EMLR 4, [2013] PIQR P2, [2012] EWCA Civ 1288, [2013] 1 All ER 334, [2013] CP Rep 3, [2012] 6 Costs LR 1150

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Simmons v Castle CA 26-Jul-2012
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Costs

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464783

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 evidence, and dismissed the appeal. The case was one for an account, and therefore a payment in was not appropriate, and the court was correct to allow for the Calderbank letter. The judge, in view of his findings was free to make the order for payment of indemnity costs.
‘First if it is found that the destruction of the evidence was carried out deliberately so as to hinder the proof of the plaintiffs claim then such finding will obviously reflect on the credibility of the destroyer. In such circumstances it would enable the court to disregard the evidence of the destroyer in the application of the presumption. That is not this case.
Second, if the court has difficulty in deciding which party’s evidence to accept then it would be legitimate to resolve that doubt by the application of the presumption. But, thirdly, if the judge forms a clear view, having borne in mind all the difficulties which may arise from the unavailability of material documents, as to which side is telling the truth I do not accept that the application of the presumption can require the judge to accept evidence he does not believe or to reject evidence he finds to be truthful.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Saville Lord Justice Morritt Sir Patrick Russell

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1096, [1997] 8 Med LR 319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Armory v Delamirie KBD 1722
A jeweller to whom a chimney sweep had taken a jewel he had found, took the jewel out of the socket and refused to return it. The chimney sweep sued him in trover. On the measure of damages, the court ruled ‘unless the defendant did produce the . .
Cited – Gray v Haig and Son 1855
Gray was the agent for Haig and Son, selling whisky on commission. On the termination of the agency a dispute arose as to the amount of the commission due and an account was ordered. Gray had destroyed his books, which were essential to the taking . .
Cited – Indian Oil Corporation v Greenstone Shipping SA 1988
A ship had on board some oil of the shipowners and it was mixed with oil, the property of the receivers, and transported to India. The mixture could not be separated for practical purposes and the question was how much of the oil were the receivers . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Willis v Redbridge Health Authority CA 22-Dec-1995
An unsuccessful Defendant cannot be ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis to a legally aided Plaintiff, even if it might otherwise be justified. The normal basis is for standard costs. . .
Cited – Nichols v Evens 1883
. .

Cited by:

Cited – IS Innovative Software Ltd v Howes CA 19-Feb-2004
It was alleged that the defendant had backdated contracts of employment to a time when he had been employed by the claimant, and had induced staff to leave. The company appealed dismissal of its claim.
Held: The advantage of the court . .
Cited – Zabihi v Janzemini and Others CA 30-Jul-2009
The claimant said that he had left valuable jewelry with the defendant for sale. The defendant said at first they had been stolen, but then returned jewelry which the claimant denied was what had been left. The defendant appealed a finding that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Company, Costs

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141492

L v L (Costs: Legal Aid Taxation): CA 26 Jan 1996

Solicitors hourly rates are not to be artificially reduced by use of averages. The judge had placed too much weight on artificially low average hourly rates.
Neill LJ considered recent cases and set out five propositions to be applied by the taxing officer: (1) the general principle of taxation is that a solicitor’s remuneration should consist of two elements – first a sum computed on the basis of an hourly rate which represents what is called the ‘broad average direct cost’ of undertaking the work; and secondly, a sum, usually expressed as a percentage mark-up of the broad average direct cost for care and conduct:
(2) the broad average direct cost is to be assessed by reference to an average firm in the relevant area at the relevant time:
(3) the relevant time means the time at which the work was done. No allowance should be made for the consequences of later inflation:
(4) the District Judge can draw on his own experience and on information which is provided to him by local firms; the District Judge can also take account of surveys.
(5) an artificially inflated figure for uplift should not be used to correct or compensate for inadequate hourly rates: accordingly the appropriate hourly rates should be the rates which ‘represented the actual cost to the solicitor at the relevant time doing the relevant work (assuming always that the solicitor has acted reasonably and the costs are incurred at the appropriate level).
He added two qualifications. First that the words of Order 62 Rule 12(1) contain the key test ‘a reasonable amount in respect of all costs reasonably incurred’ and, second that ‘I would also wish to leave open the question, which does not arise in this case, as to whether it is always correct to consider only firms in the relevant area. There may cases where it might be arguable that though the costs were reasonable for the solicitor instructed, it was not reasonable to instruct a solicitor practising in an expensive inner city area rather than one practising, for example, in a suburb.’
Aldous LJ said: ‘The task of the taxing officer under Order 62 Rule 12 is to allow ‘a reasonable amount in respect of all costs reasonably incurred’. That requires two decisions. First, whether costs were reasonably incurred and secondly – what is the reasonable amount that should be allowed? We are not concerned with the first matter, as there is no dispute before us as to whether any particular work carried out should or should not have been carried out nor whether it should have been carried out by a partner or some other employee. The only issue before us is whether the reasonable amount should be calculated using as the Part A figure pounds 45 per hour for a partner and pounds 30 per hour for a legal executive . . The reasonable amount is not necessarily the amount that a solicitor charges, but is the reasonable amount that a party ordered to pay costs should pay. Thus the expense rate of certain solicitors may be totally irrelevant as their overheads and therefore their expense rate far exceeds that which other solicitors doing the relevant work would charge. A party ordered to pay costs should not be liable for the particular choice of solicitor of the winning party, but should pay the reasonable costs of the sort of solicitor that a person would have instructed with a view of the proper conduct of his case and minimising the costs of the litigation.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ, Neill LJ

Citations:

Gazette 28-Feb-1996, Times 26-Jan-1996, [1996] 1 FLR 873

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – O’Beirne v Hudson CA 9-Feb-2010
The matter had been settled by a consent order providing for costs on a standard basis, however the costs judge had decided that the matter would if it had proceeded, have been allocated to the small claims track, and therefore limited his costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.82885

Rayner v The Lord Chancellor: ChD 2 Dec 2013

Judges:

Nicholas Strauss QC sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division

Citations:

[2013] WLR(D) 467, [2013] EWHC 3878 (Ch), [2014] 1 Costs LR 59, [2014] 1 WLR 677

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) Regulations 2000 5(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Rayner v The Lord Chancellor CA 9-Nov-2015
The claimant had been a defendant in an action. He came to be awarded substantial damages and costs, but the legally aided claimant was unlikely ever to be able to pay, and he sought payment of his costs under the Regulations. The respondent said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.522671

Sud v London Borough of Ealing: EAT 29 May 2012

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Direct disability discrimination
The Employment Tribunal did not err in its conclusion that the Appellant’s claims for discrimination were unfounded, save to the limited extent to which they found it should succeed, nor did it err in law in exercising its discretion to make an award of costs to the extent of 50% of the Respondent’s reasonable costs.

Judges:

Wilkie J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0482 – 11 – 2905

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Costs

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463515

Lister v American Institute for Foreign Study (UK) Ltd and Another: EAT 22 Jun 2012

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time for appealing
The Claimant did not truthfully explain her error in failing to submit her complete Notice of Appeal in time. Given the Claimant accepts she is relentless in her pursuit of the Respondents, costs were awarded.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0044 – 12 – 2206

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463518

SG v Hewitt: CA 2 Aug 2012

The claimant child was substantially injured at the negligence of the defendant. A pre-action offer of settlement was later made and, two years later, accepted. The parties now disputed liability for costs.

Judges:

Pill, Arden, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1053

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463426

AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 31 Jul 2012

Judges:

Nicola Davies DBE J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2224 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Principal judgment – AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 25-Jul-2012
The claimant child sought damages and an injunction from and against the defendant newspapers, alleging harassment and breach of her privacy. At times there had been as many as ten reporters encamped outside her house. . .

Cited by:

First Instance Costs – AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 20-May-2013
An order had been sought for the claimant child for damages after publication by the defendant of details of her identity and that of her politician father. She now appealed against refusal of her claim for damages for publication of private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463323

Wm Nedham, Esq v J Simpson, W Taylor, S Taylor, and W Chrystie: PC 19 Aug 1831

Jamaica – Costs given to appellants from the judgments of a colonial court of Error, confirmng, upon a bill of exceptions, the judgments of a Court of Common Law, on the ground that the points of law involved in the appeals had previously been determined, in two previous appeals against the same respondenta, and that they, by not consenting to an amicable compromise, had put the appelIants
to unnecessary expense

Citations:

[1831] UKPC 4

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Costs

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463142

Peach Publishing Limited v Slater and Co (a Firm): CA 14 Jan 1997

The respondent sought security for costs against an appeal by the plaintiff company.
Held: Substantial sums had been paid into court, and which could be treated as money belonging to the plaintiff. Accordingly there was no need for any security for costs.

Judges:

Lord Justice Nourse Mr. Justice Cazalet

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 769

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Costs

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141165

Pelling v Pelling: CA 15 Jan 1997

The appellant wished to appeal orders for costs made against him in family proceedings. The respondent had filed her bill of costs out of time, with no explanation of the delay. He contended that there was no foundation for the court to exercise its discretion to allow the bill. In the second case he said the judge had been wrong to say that no extension of time was required.
Held: What he described was desirable good practice, but did not prevent a taxation of the costs.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 776

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chapman v Chapman ChD 1985
The plaintiff had been awarded her costs in a probate action, but had then failed to commence proceedings for taxation in time. When her solicitors did proceed, they gave no notice. She appealed an award of nominal costs only.
Held: Order 3 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Family

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141172

Philcox v Civil Aviation Authority: CA 5 Dec 1996

Judges:

Staughton LJ, Millett LJ, Ward LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Philcox v Civil Aviation Authority CA 8-Jun-1995
Civil Aviation Authority’s role is for the protection of the pubic generally, not to look after individuals. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.140984

McCaffery v Datta; Datta and St Anne’s Nursing Home Limited: CA 11 Dec 1996

Costs payable to the plaintiff after an award which was greater than the payment in even though it might be less than the sum of benefits which might be recouped.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jan-1997, Times 09-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1179, [1997] 1 WLR 870

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141047

Kawarindrasingh v White: CA 13 Dec 1996

A judge who was reviewing the taxation of a litigant in person’s bill of costs, has the powers of taxing officer. He was not limited to changing the taxing officer’s decision if it was Wednesbury unreasonable. He had his own discretion.

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-1996, Gazette 13-Dec-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.82688

Warsama and Another v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Others: QBD 5 Dec 2018

Bill of Rights – ECHR Art. 8 – basis of damages in Convention Claims – loss of a chance – costs – statements of case – right to give account before public criticism – Parliamentary Privilege

Judges:

McCloud M

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3393 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.631496

Purohit v Hospira UK Ltd: EAT 18 Apr 2012

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Costs
Review
The unsuccessful Claimant sought a review of the Employment Tribunal judgment. It was an extensive application. The Employment Judge sought a comprehensive response by the Respondent in his preliminary consideration under rule 35(3). The Respondent responded and sought its cost of so doing. Without a hearing, but after reading the Claimant’s submissions, the Employment Judge refused to order a review and awarded a portion of the Respondent’s costs. The Employment Judge did not err or exercise his discretion wrongly. Costs may be awarded at any stage of the proceedings if the criteria in rule 40(3) are met.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0306 – 11 – 1804

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462919

Cantana v HMRC: UTTC 25 May 2012

COSTS – appeal in standard category before First-tier Tribunal – appeal compromised on day of hearing – direction in favour of appellant in respect of costs refused – whether refusal incorrect exercise of discretion – no – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 172 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462877

AK Optical Ltd (T/A Eyecare) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 May 2012

FTTTx COSTS – transitional appeal – application to disapply the 2009 Tribunal Rules and to apply the 1986 VAT and Duties Tribunal Rules – HMRC v Atlantic Electronics Limited considered – application refused – application for costs pursuant to rule 10(1)(b) of the 2009 Tribunal Rules on the basis of unreasonable conduct – application refused

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 372 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Costs

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462724

Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Mar 2012

FTTTx Procedure – costs – application for costs out of time – whether discretion to entertain an application should be exercised – Rule 5 (3) (a) Tribunal Rules 2009 – whether direction should be made to apply Rule 29 of the VAT Tribunal Rules 1986 – Atlantic Electronics considered – alternatively whether order for costs should be made under Rule 10 Tribunal Rules 2009 – whether Respondents acting unreasonably

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 219 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Dec-2010
FTTTx Excise Duty – warehouse – application for registration as an owner of goods under Warehousekeepers and Owners of Goods Regulations 1999 (‘WOWGR’) – whether decision of HMRC could reasonably have been . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v South Western Magistrates’ Court Admn 22-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the magistrates first to issue search warrants, and then to refuse to disclose the information on which it had been based.
Held: The documentation now having been disclosed the second part of . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jan-2012
The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Barnes v Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others CCC 4-Apr-2012
The respondent had had a receivership order made after ex parte restraint orders were made. The orders were set aside as unlawful, but the receiver now sought his very substantial costs from the respondent’s assets. . .
Appeal from – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 22-May-2012
The appellants had succeeded in resisting proceedings commenced by the respondents for the seizure of goods. The respondent now argued that costs should not follow the event, asserting a statutory bar. The appellant additionally argued that any such . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash And Carry Plc And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-2013
Statement of Facts – The company’s goods had been detained by Customs and Excise. A court later ordered their return, but found the detention to have been with reasonable cause. The Revenue had successfully argued that costs could not be awarded . .
See Also – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 11-Jun-2014
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Costs

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462607

P v P (Financial Provision: Non-disclosure): 1994

The applicant wife had been shown to have been guilty of considerable misconduct of the financial case. It was submitted that, as a result of that misconduct, the court should reduce the wife’s award on the application of the Section 25(2)(g) criterion.
Held: The appropriate penalty was in costs, not in a reduction in the assets awarded. Thorpe J said: ‘There was no principle that serious non-disclosure would always be penalised in costs.’
The wife was shown under cross examination to have made a serious under-disclosure in her ancillary relief application. H argued that this should be reflected in the award to be made to her.
Held: Thogh not invariably so, the consequences should be in an appropriate order for costs: ‘It seems to me that in that case such price as is to be paid by the dishonest litigant is a price in costs, not in reduction of the appropriate share of the available assets. The suggestion contained in the last sentence of Lincoln J’s judgment that maxims of equity should be applied to deny or reduce relief I cannot follow. It seems to me that the court has a duty to discharge a statutory function on the application of statutory criteria, and maxims of equity have nothing to do with it.’

Judges:

Thorpe J

Citations:

[1994] 1 FCR 293

Statutes:

Matrimonial Cause Act 1973 25(2)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – B v B 1988
When the husband’s sole asset is a business which cannot be sold for the ancillary relief proceedings, it would be pointless to order its valuation. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tavoulareas v Tavoulareas (2) CA 19-Nov-1996
Both husband and wife had independent means, and neither worked. The wife had spent pounds 100,000k on Children Act proceedings, and sought ancillary relief. The judge had made an order on capital to reflect the fact that if those costs had not been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.235326

CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Mora Hotel Corp Nv and Another: CA 19 Nov 2002

A party had been ordered to pay into court as a condition of an application to set aside a judgment, a substantial sum in respect of past costs, and also as security for costs to be incurred. The defendant appealed.
Held: The judge had not differentiated between the two. On an application for security for costs, a court could look to the resources which might be available to the party. That might also be relevant when ordering payment of past costs, but the considerations differed. In this case there was no absence of good faith as in Oury. The order was also wrong in being, in reality, directed against a third party against whom no costs order could properly be made. The element relating to security for future costs stood.

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Mance, Hale, LJJ

Citations:

Times 28-Nov-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1688, [2003] 1 All ER 564

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(f) 3.1(3)(a) 3.1(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Olakunle O Olatawura v Alexander O Abiloye CA 17-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged an order requiring him to give security for costs before proceeding. The judge had felt he was unreasonable in the way he was pursuing his claim. He appealed saying the order was made outside the scope of Part 25.
Held: . .
Cited – Reed and others v Oury and others ChD 14-Mar-2002
The court should only exercise its power under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 3 to require a payment in only in limited circumstances, and not do so unless the party against whom the order was sought had acted in bad faith. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.188954

Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy and Others: ChD 13 Jan 2000

Once a legal aid certificate is revoked the party is deemed by statute never to have had the benefit of a legal aid certificate. The rules relating to assessment of costs which applied when a party had legal aid did not therefore apply. An order however which has once been made cannot be varied subsequently by reference to those rules, even if the order was made in the light of them.

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2000, Gazette 13-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 130, Civil Procedure Rules Part 3.1(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.79884

British Diabetic Association v Diabetic Society; Bennett and Atkin: CA 31 Oct 1996

The plaintiffs sought damages. Alleging passing off by the defendants. An injunction had been granted, and the appellants now sought to appeal release from that injunction. An order for costs estimated at andpound;350,000 had been made.
Held: Leave to appeal would be granted only on the appellants giving security for costs in the sum of andpound;40,000. They were impecunious and should not be denied an opportunity to appeal even though the chances of success on appeal were slim.

Judges:

Lord Justice Phillips

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 839

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Charity, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.140706

F and C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd and Others v Barthelemy and Another: CA 22 Jun 2012

The parties, former partners in a limited liability partnership providing investment funds management, had been involved in protracted and bitter litigation. The appellant now challenged the award of indemnity costs.

Judges:

Arden, Tomlinson, Davis LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 843, [2012] WLR (D) 183, [2013] Bus LR 186, [2013] 1 Costs LR 35, [2013] 1 WLR 548, [2012] 4 All ER 1096

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – F and C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy and Another ChD 14-Jul-2011
The parties applied to the court for a conclusion to their action without the draft judgment being handed down and published, they having reached agreement.
Held: It was within the judge’s discretion and in this in the public interest for the . .
See Also – F and C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy and Another (No 2) ChD 14-Jul-2011
The court was asked as to the fiduciary obligations owed by members of the board of a limited liability company.
Held: Sales J said that: ‘there is nothing in the Act to qualify the usual fiduciary obligations which an agent owes his principal . .
See Also – F and C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy and Another ChD 28-Oct-2011
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460565

Fisher Meredith Llp v JH and Another: FD 2 Mar 2012

The solicitors appealed against a wasted costs order made against them when acting for W in financial remedy proceedings, being found to be responsible for the late adjournment of a five days remedy hering.

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 408 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460521

Painting v University of Oxford: CA 3 Feb 2005

The claimant had sought damages for personal injuries, namely injury to her back. Though she was found to have exaggerated her claim, she still recovered more than had been paid in. The defendant appealed a costs order based solely on the size of the recovery.
Held: When a claimant exaggerated her claim, the question of costs was not to be settled only by the size of the award as against the payment in. Such cases were fact sensitive. The court had a discretion. The defendant said it was in an impossible position, but this was not true. It could have increased the size of its payment in. The issue at trial had however been substantially as to the existence of the exaggeration. The defendant was in fact the winner of the issues played out before the court, and with some reluctance the costs award was altered.

Judges:

Longmore LJ, Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 161, [2005] PIQR Q5, [2005] 3 Costs LR 394

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hall and others v Stone CA 18-Dec-2007
The claimants appealed against a reduction in their costs awards after succeeding in their claims arising from road traffic incidents. The judge had awarded them only 60% of their costs and they appealed submitting that there was no reason why they . .
Cited – Widlake v BAA Ltd CA 23-Nov-2009
The claimant had succeeded in her action for personal injuries, but now appealed against the awarding of costs to the defendant. The dispute had been substantialy as to the nature and effect of her injuries. She had not disclosed earlier injury to . .
Cited – Gregson v Hussein, CIS Insurance CA 9-Feb-2010
The claimant appealed against the level of costs awarded to him in succeeding in his claim for damages for personal injury following a road traffic accident. The court had found that though the claimant had succeeded, the substantial dispute had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.223216

Northern and Shell Plc v Champion Children Ltd: CA 3 Jul 2001

Application by the successful claimants in the court below (the respondents) to a proposed appeal by the defendants to strike out the defendants’ appeal because the defendants have failed to pay or otherwise provide by way of security for the claimants’ costs (as the respondents in the appeal) the sum of pounds 10,000 agreed to be provided by 2nd May 2000 in correspondence between the parties’ solicitors.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.201271

Faulkner v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: QBD 18 Feb 2020

The issues which fall to be determined between the parties in this case are:
(i) whether or not a defendant in proceedings to which the QOCS regime applies may, nevertheless, seek to set off against a costs order made in favour of the claimant a costs order which had previously been made in favour of the defendant; and
(ii) if so, whether the court can or should exercise its discretion in favour of such a claimant against allowing such a set off.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 296 (QB), [2020] WLR(D) 98

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.648903

Parveen, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Redbridge: CA 12 Mar 2020

Appeal against an order made in the Administrative Court that each party should bear its own costs following the appellant’s withdrawal of a claim for judicial review.

Judges:

Lord Justice Males

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 194

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Costs

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.648856

Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 22 May 2012

The appellants had succeeded in resisting proceedings commenced by the respondents for the seizure of goods. The respondent now argued that costs should not follow the event, asserting a statutory bar. The appellant additionally argued that any such bar would operate to infringe its human rights.

Judges:

Mummery, Elias, David LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 689, [2012] CP Rep 38, [2012] STI 2593, [2012] STC 2036, [2012] WLR(D) 159, [2012] 1 WLR 2912

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Dec-2010
FTTTx Excise Duty – warehouse – application for registration as an owner of goods under Warehousekeepers and Owners of Goods Regulations 1999 (‘WOWGR’) – whether decision of HMRC could reasonably have been . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v South Western Magistrates’ Court Admn 22-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the magistrates first to issue search warrants, and then to refuse to disclose the information on which it had been based.
Held: The documentation now having been disclosed the second part of . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jan-2012
The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status. . .
Appeal from – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 27-Mar-2012
FTTTx Procedure – costs – application for costs out of time – whether discretion to entertain an application should be exercised – Rule 5 (3) (a) Tribunal Rules 2009 – whether direction should be made to apply . .

Cited by:

See Also – Eastenders Cash And Carry Plc And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-2013
Statement of Facts – The company’s goods had been detained by Customs and Excise. A court later ordered their return, but found the detention to have been with reasonable cause. The Revenue had successfully argued that costs could not be awarded . .
See Also – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
Appeal from – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 11-Jun-2014
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Costs, Human Rights

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459681

Schneider v Door2Door Pts Ltd: SCCO 18 Jul 2011

The court was asked: did the Claimant, Mrs Schneider, suffer injury in a road traffic accident, in which case her costs are limited to those fixed under the recoverable costs regime in CPR rule 45 Part II; or are they ‘at large’ because the accident was an accident, but not a road traffic accident and accordingly her costs are recoverable without limit, subject to being proportionate and reasonable?

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 90210 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Road Traffic

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459630

Daniels v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 23 May 1996

Costs award above scale correct after assessment relative to scale.
The County Court costs scales are to be considered when departing from the scale. An award above scale rates may be correct after an assessment relative to the scale.

Citations:

Times 18-Oct-1996, Gazette 17-Jul-1996

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 38(9)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.79796

Systech International Ltd v PC Harrington Contractors Ltd: TCC 27 Oct 2011

The court was asked as to the recoverability of adjudicators’ fees in circumstances where the decision of the adjudicator is said to be unenforceable by reason of a failure to comply with the rules of natural justice.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2722 (TCC), [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 381, [2012] BLR 47, 139 Con LR 102, [2012] Bus LR 1013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Costs

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.447621

Bentinck v Bentinck: CA 6 Mar 2007

The court intervened to attempt to avoid further expenditure of huge sums in legal fees in resolving a sterile jurisdictional dispute for ancillary relief proceedings. Over pounds 330,000 had already been spent.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 175, Times 12-Apr-2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Moore v Moore CA 20-Apr-2007
The family were wealthy, and had lived for some time in Spain. On the breakdown of the marriage, the wife returned to the UK, and sought ancillary relief here, though the divorce had been in Spain. The husband argued that this should be dealt with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.249862

Fitzgerald and Others v Williams and Others O’Regan and Others v Same: CA 3 Jan 1996

Security for costs should not to be granted against an EC National in the absence of some particular difficulty. The Treaty required citizens of other states which were signatories of the convention. The importance of accurate evidence is particularly acute on an application without notice, and the duty of disclosure on such an application was stressed

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-1996, Ind Summary 12-Feb-1996, [1996] 2 WLR 447, [1996] QB 657

Statutes:

EC Treaty Arts 6, 220, Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (OJ 1972 L299/32)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Reconsidered – Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd 1987
When considering an application for security for costs against a litigant resident in the EU, the courts must allow for the new additional scope for enforcement of any judgment under the 1982 Act. In this case, an order for security for costs . .
Reconsidered – De Bry v Fitzgerald CA 1990
A request was made for security for costs in a large sum against a foreign resident party: ‘The more usual course might have been to order security, if security was to be ordered at all, in a relatively small sum in the first place, leaving the . .
Reconsidered – Berkeley Administration Inc v McClelland CA 1990
There is no legally acceptable basis on which the benefit of an undertaking, to which a member of a group of companies is entitled, may be claimed on behalf of the group as a whole. The court discussed who had the benefit of cross undertakings given . .
Applied – Mund and Fester v Hatrex Internationaal Transport ECJ 10-Feb-1994
(Judgment) A presumption against the successful enforcement of a judgment was not valid against an EU member. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another CA 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. . .
Cited – Ghafoor and others v Cliff and others ChD 11-Apr-2006
The applicant had obtained revocation of a grant of administration ad colligenda bona in the estate, and having succeeded, now sought costs. The question was whether there had been proper reasons for the application for the grant. The deceased’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, European

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.80580

Lifestyle Equities Cv and Another v Amazon UK Services Ltd and Others: ChD 23 Mar 2021

Post judgment consequential orders: ‘i) Whether an injunction should be granted against the Defendants.
ii) The appropriate order as to costs, including a point on interest.
iii) The amount of the interim payment on account of such costs that I should order.
iv) The Claimants’ application for permission to appeal.’

Judges:

Michael Green J

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 721 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.660792

NFC Properties Ltd v London Borough of Camden: CA 15 Feb 1993

An order relating to the taxation of costs was not itself an order ‘only for costs’ which must be left to the discretion of the judge hearing the application. Accordingly, the court of appeal could grant leave to appeal against the order where this was refused by the judge involved.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1)(f)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.84288

McDonald and Others v Horn and Others: CA 8 Aug 1994

A court may make a pre-emptive award of costs to pension fund members who wished to sue the trustees. Hoffmann LJ said: ‘if one looks at the economic relationships involved, there does seem to me to be a compelling analogy between a minority shareholder’s action for damages on behalf of the company and an action by a member of a pension fund to compel trustees or others to account to a fund. In both cases a person with a limited interest in a fund, whether a company’s assets or a pension fund, is alleging injury to the fund as a whole and seeking restitution on behalf of the fund. And what distinguishes the shareholder and pension fund member, on the one hand, from the ordinary trust beneficiary, on the other, is that the former have both given consideration for their interests. They are not just recipients of the settlor’s bounty which he, for better or worse, has entrusted to the control of trustees of his choice. The relationship between the parties is a commercial one and the pension fund members are entitled to be satisfied that the fund is being properly administered. Even in a non-contributory scheme, the employer’s payments are not bounty. They are part of the consideration for the services of the employee. Pension funds are such a special form of trust and the analogy between them and companies with shareholders is so much stronger than in the case of ordinary trusts that, in my judgment, that it would do no violence to established authority if we were to apply to them the Wallersteiner v. Moir (No. 2) procedure.’
As to the court’s powers to award costs: ‘The court’s jurisdiction to deal with litigation costs is based upon section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which, is derived from section 5 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1890.
The background to the Act of 1890 is briefly as follows. In the old courts of common law, costs followed the event. The judge had no discretion. In the Court of Chancery, costs were in the discretion of the court but that discretion was exercised according to certain principles which I shall discuss later. The first Rules of the new Supreme Court of Judicature (enacted in 1875) adopted the Chancery practice.
The discretion conferred by section 51 is by no means untrammelled. It must be exercised in accordance with the rules of court and established principles.’ and ‘In the case of a fund held on trust, therefore, [‘therefore’ is explained by his immediately previous citation of sub rule 2 of order 62, rule 6 of the then Rules of the Supreme Court] the trustee is entitled to his costs out of the fund on an indemnity basis, provided only that he has not acted unreasonably or in substance for his own benefit rather than that of the fund. Trustees are also able to protect themselves against the possibility that they may be held to have acted unreasonably or in their own interest by applying at an early stage for directions as to whether to bring or defend the proceedings. This procedure, sanctioned by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam requires the trustee to make full disclosure of the strengths and weaknesses of his case. Provided that such disclosure has been made, the trustee can have full assurance that he will not personally have to bear his own costs or pay those of anyone else.’

Judges:

Hoffmann LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 08-Aug-1994, Times 10-Aug-1994, [1995] 1 All ER 961, (1994) 144 NLJ 1515, [1995] ICR 685, [1995] 1 CR 685

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51, Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1890 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – McDonald and Others v Horn and Others ChD 12-Oct-1993
A pre-emptive costs order is possible where Plaintiffs are impecunious but the case is very strong. . .
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 – In re Mills’ Estate CA 1886
The Practice Rules conferred a discretion as to costs only in cases in which before the Judicature Acts the courts would have had jurisdiction to make awards of costs. The Act of 1890 was intended to confer such jurisdiction in any case whatever. . .
Cited – In Re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam CA 1893
A trustee had unsuccessfully defended an action against the trust in detinue for the return of deeds. He now sought protection against a costs order. Costs having been awarded against a trustee in proceeding A, the trustee sought to be indemnified . .

Cited by:

Cited – AMP (UK) Plc and Another v Barker and Others ChD 8-Dec-2000
The claimants were interested under a pension scheme. Alterations had been made, which the said had been in error, and they sought rectification to remove a link between early leaver benefits and incapacity benefits. The defendant trustees agreed . .
Cited – Alsop Wilkinson v Neary and Others ChD 4-Nov-1994
The second defendant, a solicitor, had fraudulently taken money from trusts, and paid money into trusts for his own family. It was claimed that the payments were intended to defeat the recovery of the funds. The trustees sought protection on costs . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – 3 Individual Present Professional Trustees of 2 Trusts v an Infant Prospective Beneficiary of One Trust and others ChD 25-Jul-2007
The parties challenged under the 198 Act the right of trustees to seek a Beddoe order protecting themselves against an award of costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83521

Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Corporation (No 2): CA 20 Jan 1994

A successful appeal on a costs award should be backdated to the original order.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Feb-1994, Times 20-Jan-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Disapproved – Nykredit Mortgage Bank Plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (No 2) HL 27-Nov-1997
A surveyor’s negligent valuation had led to the plaintiff obtaining what turned out to be inadequate security for his loan. A cause of action against a valuer for his negligent valuation arises when a relevant and measurable loss is first recorded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.82868

Fozal v Gofur: CA 9 Jul 1993

An order for wasted costs against counsel could only be allowed with respect to acts done after 1 October 1991, with the new rules.

Citations:

Times 09-Jul-1993, Ind Summary 26-Jul-1993, [1993] CA Transcript 680

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990$ 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.80655