Category: Costs

Time Machine Series of 2 Time Machine (Trade Mark: Revocation): IPO 26 Nov 2008

Section 46(1)(b). Appeal to the Appointed Person. Award of costs – Award of costs to the registered proprietor. See Hearing Officer’s decision dated 8 April 2008 (BL O/100/08).
See Appointed Person’s decision dated 10 November 08(BL O/306/08)
In her decision dated 10 November 2008 (BL O/306/08) the Appointed Person rejected the appeal against the Hearing Officer’s decision of 8 April 2008 (BL O/100/08). She allowed the parties to make written submissions as to the award of costs.
The Appointed Person decided that an appropriate scale award would be andpound;2,100 but she abated this sum by andpound;500 as the applicant had had some measure of success with its appeal. The sum of andpound;1,600 therefore, awarded to the registered proprietor, together with the sum of andpound;2,000 awarded by the Hearing Officer.

Judges:

Ms A Michaels

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o31608

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.457210

Anderson v Shetland Islands Council and Another: SC 29 Feb 2012

The claimant sought leave to appeal. Each party now sought security for costs against the other. Her action related to water damage to her house said to have been caused by road mprovements and building works erected by and with the approval of the various defendants.
Held: The rule in the House of Lords was that a non-legally aided appellant should lodge andpound;25,000 as security with the House to proceed. The Supreme Court had decide not to follow that rule. The case for an award of security was compelling. The value of unpaid costs ordered against the appellant already exceeded the value of her house, the proposed appeal appeared to be without merit, the appellants averments had already been found irrelevant, and the appeal was arguably an abuse. An order for security of andpound;20,000 was made, to be paid as a condition of proceeding with the appeal.

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed

Citations:

[2012] UKSC 7, UKSC 2011/0094

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Anderson v Shetland Islands Council and Another SCS 16-Feb-2010
The petitioner complained that the responders had constructed various properties near her house in such a way as to redirect large volumes of run-off water onto her property.
Held: The petition was dismissed. The petitioner had not relevantly . .
See Also – Anderson v Shetland Islands Council and Another SCS 15-Nov-2011
. .
Cited – Ritchie v M’Intosh 10-Jan-1881
Lord Young said that absolute impecuniosity is never the sole reason for making an order requiring payment of a sum by way of security for the costs on an appeal: ‘The conduct of the cause may be such, or other matters may transpire, which may make . .
Cited – Will v Sneddon Campbell and Munro SCS 1931
Lord Hunter said: ‘It is well settled, no doubt, that, if a man is bankrupt and if he is divested of his estate, he is not entitled to sue an action unless he finds caution. But that is only a general rule; there are exceptions even to that. On the . .
Cited – Rush v Fife Regional Council SCS 1985
The sheriff’s decision to order caution was upheld, having regard to the pursuer’s conduct, the nature of his pleadings which were said to be hopelessly irrelevant and his failure to pay the expenses awarded against him in another action. Lord . .
Cited – Stevenson v Midlothian District Council HL 1983
The pursuer was an undischarged bankrupt. The Lord Ordinary ordered him to find caution, although he was in receipt of legal aid. He said that he had had regard to the nature of the action and the pleadings, as well as to the fact that he was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Costs

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451701

Dockerill and Another v Tullett: CA 24 Feb 2012

In all three claims, children sought to recover the costs of applications to approve compromises of their claims for damages for personal injuries received. In particular the court was asked whether they were entitled only to fixed costs, or were subject to detailed assessment.

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 184

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 21.10(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451493

Broom, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 15 Mar 2012

The long standing prisoner sought leave to appeal against a decision to remove from his possession photographs of his family including children. The respondent had now agreed for their return, and the court now considered what order should be made as to costs.
Held: The decision had largely been made on the prompting of the proceedings and the decision to give leave to appeal. Costs were given to the appellant on the appeal, but no order for costs was made as to proceedings in the lower court.

Judges:

Rimer LJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 275

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452134

Simcoe v Jacuzzi UK Group Plc: CA 16 Feb 2012

The court was asked as to the date from which interest should run on an award of costs in favour of a successful claimant, whose legal representatives were retained under a conditional fee agreement (a ‘CFA’), in a personal injury claim brought in the County Court.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Hooper, McFarlane JJ, Gordon-Saker Ass

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 137

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.451317

Galandauer v Snaresbrook Crown Court: Admn 27 Jun 2006

The defendant, having succeeded at the crown court in reducing his ban for driving offences, now appealed a small order for costs in his favour.
Held: He was entitled to the just and reasonable costs of making the appeal. The award of andpound;150 instead of andpound;650 without giving reasons was wrong. No solicitor whether in London or otherwise would be expected to be available at that rate.

Judges:

Dyson LJ, Walker J

Citations:

Times 15-Aug-2006, [2006] EWHC 1633 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Costs

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.243056

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 estate had assets internationally and his affairs were complicated. The family were in disagreement. The grant had been obtained to anticipate a grant in Pakistan, and to prevent intermeddling in the unadministered estate.
Held: A grant ad colligenda bona is a limited grant of administration, enabling the grantee to safeguard the assets of the deceased within the jurisdiction of the court. It is a useful, sometimes vital, power enabling urgent steps to be taken at a time when it is not yet practicable to obtain a full grant of probate or administration. However the affidavit which was the basis of the application was seriously flawed, and made allegations which were now accepted to be unfounded. The application for the grant should have been made on notice. It was clearly a contentious application, where allegations of dishonesty were being made, and whch was not so urgent as to preclude notice. The practice books said that it should be made without notice, but there was no such requirement in the rules. In these circumstances also, the solicitors who made the application were not sufficiently independent. Though the defendants had agreed to the withdrawing of the grant, that was inevitable. It was right that the defendants should pay the costs, and not out of the estate, but that should not be on an indemnity basis. Despite the decision in D’Costa, probate registrars in their duties exercise judicial functions: ‘It is inimical to a judicial process that a party should engage in private communications with the person exercising the judicial function whether during the proceedings or at a later stage. ‘

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice David Richards

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 825 (Ch), [2006] 2 All ER 1079, [2006] 1 WLR 3020

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Fitzgerald and Others v Williams and Others O’Regan and Others v Same CA 3-Jan-1996
Security for costs should not to be granted against an EC National in the absence of some particular difficulty. The Treaty required citizens of other states which were signatories of the convention. The importance of accurate evidence is . .
Cited – Shepherd v Wheeler ChD 2000
An application was made without notice for the appointment of an alleged creditor under section 116 as administrator of the deceased’s intestate estate.
Held: The court applied the standard principles of an enhanced duty of disclosure in . .
Cited – Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden and Johnson (A Firm) and others CA 30-Nov-2001
. .
Cited – Simms and others v The Law Society CA 12-Jul-2005
The appellant challenged intervention proceedings brought against his solicitors practice by the respondent. Following disciplinary proceedings, the Society had obtained summary judgment rejecting the application, and awarding costs. The solicitor . .
Cited – D’Costa and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Another Admn 23-Feb-2006
The claimant sought a declaration that the District probate Registrars were judicial officers.
Held: They were not. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chantrey Vellacott v The Convergence Group Plc and others ChD 31-Jul-2007
The claimants, a firm of accountants, sued their former clients for unpaid fees. The defendant company counterclaimed for professional negligence. The claimant had expended andpound;5.6m in costs. The claimants now sought a non-party costs order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.241459

Latreefers Inc and others v Hobson and others: ChD 25 Jul 2002

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1696 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stocznia Gdanska S A v Latvian Shipping Co and Others HL 22-Jan-1998
The parties had contracted to design, build, complete and deliver ships. The contract was rescinded after a part performance.
Held: It remained appropriate for payment to be made for the work already done in the design and construction stages: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.174355

W Nagel (A Firm) and Another v Pluczenik and Another: QBD 21 Nov 2019

‘whether CPR Part 71 allows a person to be compelled for examination as a ‘judgment debtor’ when the only outstanding parts of the judgment against him are costs orders for sums which have yet to be agreed or determined by assessment. Payment of those sums has not yet, therefore, fallen due.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Griffiths

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3126 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.645969

Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts and Others (Costs): Admn 15 Dec 2011

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3364 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts and Another Admn 7-Nov-2011
The claimant, the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust sought to quash as flawed and unlawful a consultation by the first defendant concerning the reconfiguration of paediatric congenital cardiac services (PCCS) in England. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts and Another CA 19-Apr-2012
The defendant appealed against a finding that its consultation over the rationalisation of pediatric cardiac surgical facilities had been defective and unlawful. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.450071

Bouheniche v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: EAT 12 Oct 2011

EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs
The Claimant asserted he had lodged a statutory grievance but he never had and did not so inform his representative. His claim of per-employment race discrimination was struck out. An Employment Tribunal went on to find in his favour in respect of later events. The EAT would not interfere with the discretion of the Employment Judge in awarding a contribution (andpound;2000) to the Respondent’s costs.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2011] UKEAT 0559 – 11 – 1210

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.449991

Neale v Neale: 13 Jan 1837

Where an estate was sold under a decree of the Court, and one of the conditions of sale was, that the purchaser pay the purchase money into Court on a given day, at his own expense. It was held, that the purchaser was entitled to the costs of a reference as to the title reported good by the Master.

Citations:

[1837] EngR 373, (1836-1837) 1 Keen 672, (1837) 48 ER 466 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.313490

University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others: ChD 14 Dec 2004

The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants.
Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to have been able to establish whether it was proper to resist the application had survived the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules (44.3(2)(b)). The circumstances justifying the rule were still applicable. It was reasonable also for the defendants to have had separate representation, and each was entitled to the appropriate costs. There had been a potential conflict of interest.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2908 (Ch), Times 03-Jan-2005, [2005] 2 WLR 1334, [2005] 3 All ER 416, [2005] 2 Costs LR 287

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84(20, Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 9-Dec-2004
The University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive . .
Cited – Re Jeffkins Indentures 1965
‘a plaintiff seeking a declaration that restrictive covenants do not affect his property is expected to pay his own costs. He is also expected to pay the costs of any defendants who enter an appearance down to the point in proceedings at which they . .
Cited – Re Wembley Park Estate Co Ltd’s Transfer 1968
The court confirmed the rule in Jeffkins and added that ‘the costs payable to the defendant should be paid on the common fund basis ‘since the obtaining of the order is something in the nature of a luxury to the plaintiff for which he ought to pay.’ . .
Not Followed – J Sainsbury plc v Enfield London Borough Council 1989
Land had been conveyed in 1894, the purchaser covenanting with the vendor (alone). The fact that the vendor retained other land was apparent from other parts of the conveyance, but the covenant was not expressed to be for the benefit of that land. . .
Cited – AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd CA 1-Feb-1999
The copyright tribunal was given a wide discretion for the awarding of costs on applications made to it for licenses. The nature of the applications and the different basis makes it dangerous to import rules for awards from the general rules on . .

Cited by:

See Also – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 9-Dec-2004
The University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.220291

Phoenix Finance Limited v Federation Internationale De L’automobile, Formula One Management Limited, Formula One Administration Limited: ChD 22 May 2002

The claimant had purchased the interests of a failed Formula One car racing team, including, it said, the right to enter a team in Formula One races. It claimed to have been unlawfully excluded from racing.
Held: The claimant had failed to comply with the requirements imposed upon participants, and was not entitled to race. Since the claimant sought rights under the contract, it was bound by the agreement to refer disputes to arbitration. As to costs, there was still a need to serve a letter before action, and in the absence of such a letter, even in a case where there was no pre-action protocol, a party could not complain if he was ordered to pay the other party’s costs on an indemnity basis.

Judges:

The Vice Chancellor

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002, EWHC 1028 (Ch), [2002] EWHC 1028 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 9 44, Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlef Von Appen Gmbh v Wiener Allianz Versichrungs Ag and Voest Alpine Intertrading Gmbh CA 16-Apr-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Arbitration, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.171275

Fife Council v Uprichard: SCS 10 Nov 2011

The applicant had had rejected her challenge to the planning policy of the respondens. The court now considered the Council’s motion for expenses.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Hodge, Lord McEwan

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 77, [2011] CSIH 77

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

Citing:

See Also – Uprichard v Order of The Scottish Ministers SCS 30-Jul-2010
The petitioners soiught to object to the decision of the Ministers to approve a structure plan proposed for the future development of St Andrews.
Held: The request was refused. . .
Principal judgment – Uprichard v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 7-Sep-2011
The applicant sought a reclaiming motion against the local council’s Structure plan.
Held: The request was refused. Lord Justice Clerk Gill said: ‘A structure plan is that part of the statutory development plan that sets out the overall . .

Cited by:

See Also – Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Planning, Costs

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449773

Lord Chancellor v Mclarty and Co Solicitors: QBD 2 Dec 2011

The Lord Chancellor appealed against an order permitting the solicitors to make a substantial costs claim when defending two parties in a drugs case. The Costs Judge had allowed an uplift of 100% of the fee that he had determined by reference to an hourly rate.

Judges:

Burnett J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3185 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007 31(5)

Costs

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449399

Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri: CA 3 Feb 2011

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 64

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others ComC 25-May-2007
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another ComC 17-Jun-2008
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others CA 13-Nov-2008
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 6-Oct-2010
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal ComC 21-Oct-2010
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .
Cited – Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Masri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 5-May-2011
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.428861

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another: ComC 17 Jun 2008

Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account.

Judges:

Filed J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2221 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others ComC 25-May-2007
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .

Cited by:

See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others CA 13-Nov-2008
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 6-Oct-2010
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal ComC 21-Oct-2010
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .
See Also – Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See Also – Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See Also – Masri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 5-May-2011
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.276481

Wills, Marr, Marr, Burden, Wolsley House Flats Limited v The Crown Estate Commissioners, Barrett, Barrett, Walker: ChD 30 Jul 2003

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1952 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Wills, Marr, Marr, Burden, Wolsley House Flats Limited v The Crown Estate Commissioners, Barrett, Barrett, Walker ChD 14-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.187030

Boyd and Hutchinson v Joseph: ChD 14 Mar 2003

The claimant had been awarded costs, and sought to charge her time as a solicitor.
Held: The claimant had only a limited practicing certificate, which would allow her to work for others only without charge. She could not for these proceedings charge on the basis on which she would not be allowed to practise.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Patten

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 413 (Ch), Gazette 15-May-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley Crawford and Chester CA 30-May-1884
Where an action is brought against a solicitor who defends it in person and obtains judgment, he is entitled upon taxation to the same costs as if he had employed a solicitor, except in respect of items which the fact of his acting directly renders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.180338

Paccar Inc and Others v Road Haulage Association Ltd and Others: CA 5 Mar 2021

Important issue of general concern to those engaged in the business of litigation funding in England and Wales and their clients. The issue arises in the context of collective proceedings brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) pursuant to section 47B of the Competition Act 1998

Judges:

Lord Justice Henderson

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Costs

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.659357

Alpha Rocks Solicitors v Alade: CA 9 Jul 2015

The court was asked: ‘when it is appropriate to strike out a claim on the grounds that the claimant has abused the process of the court. It arises in the context of a claim by a firm of solicitors to recover their costs and expenses from their client in circumstances in which the client alleges that the bills were fraudulently exaggerated or misstated.’

Judges:

Moore-Bick, Fulford, Vos LJJ

Citations:

[2015] 1 WLR 4534, [2015] WLR(D) 308, [2015] 4 Costs LO 483, [2015] EWCA Civ 685

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.549761

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P: CA 18 Nov 2011

Judges:

Pill, Lloyd, Munby LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1333

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Cheshire West and Chester Council v P CA 9-Nov-2011
The claimant, a disabled adult with cerebral palsy and Downs, asserted that the care plan set out in an order of the Court of Protection involved a contravention of his human rights since it involved a deprivation of his liberty. He was incontinent . .
See Also – Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and Another COP 14-Jun-2011
The patient, an adult without capacity and with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy complained of his treatment, when in order to prevent his habit of eating his nappy, they dressed him in an adult babygrow costume. The court was asked whether the . .

Cited by:

See Also – P (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar SC 19-Mar-2014
Deprivation of Liberty
P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448403

Dean and Dean Solicitors v DionissiouMoussaoui: CA 17 Nov 2011

The court considered the limited role of an appellate court, being vested only with jurisdiction to entertain questions of law when it considers a Tribunal’s decision on the question of costs. Mummery LJ said: ‘This court is not entitled to interfere with the ET’s discretion, even if, had it been exercising the ET’s discretion, this court might have analysed the situation of the parties in greater depth, or given more detailed reasons for its decision, or acceded to the application to the extent of making an order for payment of some of the costs.’

Judges:

Mummery, Stanley Burnton, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1331

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Dean and Dean (A Firm) and Others v DionissiouMoussaoui CA 17-Nov-2011
Appeal about costs in an employment tribunal . .

Cited by:

Cited – St Andrew’s Catholic Primary School and Others v Blundell (Practice and Procedure – Costs) EAT 10-May-2013
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Appeal concerning the refusal of an Employment Tribunal to award costs, largely on grounds that (1) an underlying finding of the Tribunal was perverse and (2) the Tribunal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448378

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva: CA 3 Nov 2011

The claimant had issued claims in discrimination. She withdrew the claim, but still had a costs order made against her. She appealed and succeeded, and the Council now sought re-instatement of the costs order.
Held: The Court made clear the rules for intervening in a costs decision and did in fact intervene, reaching different conclusions from the ET and the EAT, but reasserted the principles that it would be unusual for there to be an intervention. Dosts are in the discretion of the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Tribunal’s powers to order costs are more sparingly exercised and are more circumscribed by the Rules of Procedure than those of the ordinary Courts; and that an Employment Tribunal Costs Order is the exception rather than rule.
Mummery LJ said: ‘I begin with some words of caution, first about the citation and value of authority on costs questions and, secondly, about the dangers of adopting an over-analytical approach to the exercise of a broad discretion.
The official words of [Rule 40] are clear enough to be applied without the need to add layers of interpretation, which may themselves be open to differing interpretations. Unfortunately, the leading judgment in McPherson delivered by me has created some confusion in the ET, EAT and in this Court. I say ‘unfortunately’ because it was never my intention to re-write the Rule, or to add a gloss to it, either by disregarding questions of causation or by requiring the ET to dissect the case in detail and compartmentalise the relevant conduct under separate headings, such as ‘nature’, ‘gravity’ and ‘effect’. Perhaps I should have said less and simply kept to the actual words of the Rule.
The vital point in exercising the discretion to order costs is to look at the whole picture of what happened in the case and to ask whether there has been unreasonable conduct by a claimant in bringing and conducting the case and, in doing so, to identify the conduct, what was unreasonable about it and what effects it had. The main thrust of the passages cited above from my judgment in McPherson was to reject as erroneous the submission to the Court that, in deciding whether to make a Costs Order, the ET had to determine whether or not there was a precise causal link between the unreasonable conduct in question and the specific cost being claimed. In rejecting that submission, I had no intention of giving birth to erroneous notions, such as that causation was a relevant or that the circumstances had to be separated into sections and each section to be analysed separately so as to lose sight of the totality of the relevant circumstances.
In the matters of discretion an earlier case only stands as authority for what are, or what are not, the principles governing the discretion and serving only as a broad steer on the factors covered by the paramount principle of relevance . .’

Judges:

Mummery, Patten LJJ, Sir Henry Brooke

Citations:

[2012] IRLR 78, [2012] ICR 420, [2012] 2 All ER 215, [2011] EWCA Civ 1255

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Raggett v John Lewis Plc EAT 17-Aug-2012
raggett_lewisEAT2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
In determining the amount of costs to be awarded having decided that the bringing of an unfair dismissal claim was misconceived and that a costs order should be made . .
Cited – Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others (Practice and Procedure : Costs) EAT 6-Jun-2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Tribunal orders that Appellant should pay Respondents one-third of their costs (estimated prior to assessment at andpound;260,000) on the basis that the claim was misconceived . .
Cited – St Andrew’s Catholic Primary School and Others v Blundell (Practice and Procedure – Costs) EAT 10-May-2013
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Appeal concerning the refusal of an Employment Tribunal to award costs, largely on grounds that (1) an underlying finding of the Tribunal was perverse and (2) the Tribunal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448131

Drake and Another v Fripp: CA 3 Nov 2011

This judgment is concerned with the assessment of costs following a half day hearing of a boundary dispute appeal, which was dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Aikens, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1282, [2012] 2 Costs LR 264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Main Judgment – Drake and Another v Fripp CA 3-Nov-2011
The parties disputed the location of the boundary between their properties. An appeal against the adjudicator’s award altering the filed plan.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘there was no restriction on the adjudicator’s power to direct the Land . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Costs

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448136

Hurst v Leeming: CA 23 Jul 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1173

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Hurst v Leeming (9026) ChD 9-May-2002
The claimant solicitor, had instructed the defendant, a barrister, to represent him in a civil claim. He sought had damages for alleged negligence. He had agreed that the action could not proceed, and the court had to decide the costs. He resisted . .

Cited by:

See Also – Robert Alfred Hurst v Ian Leeming ChD 14-Mar-2003
. .
See Also – Hurst v Leeming SCCO 9-May-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Costs

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.217422

Wills, Marr, Marr, Burden, Wolsley House Flats Limited v The Crown Estate Commissioners, Barrett, Barrett, Walker: ChD 14 Jul 2003

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1718 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Wills, Marr, Marr, Burden, Wolsley House Flats Limited v The Crown Estate Commissioners, Barrett, Barrett, Walker ChD 30-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.187069

Hurst v Leeming (9026): ChD 9 May 2002

The claimant solicitor, had instructed the defendant, a barrister, to represent him in a civil claim. He sought had damages for alleged negligence. He had agreed that the action could not proceed, and the court had to decide the costs. He resisted the defendant’s claim for costs saying that he had refused arbitration or mediation.
Held: The professional negligence pre-action protocol expected a party to explain why he refused mediation. That heavy costs had already been incurred was not a good reason, and nor was the fact that the allegation was of professional negligence. However: ‘The critical factor in this case, in my view, is whether, objectively viewed, a mediation had any real prospect of success. If mediation can have no real prospect of success of a party may, with impunity, refuse to proceed to mediation on this ground. But refusal is a high risk course to take, for if the court find that there was a real prospect, the party refusing to proceed to mediation may, as I have said, be severely penalised. Further, the hurdle in the way of a party refusing to proceed to mediation on this ground is high, for in making this objective assessment of the prospects of mediation, the starting point must surely be the fact that the mediation process itself can and does often bring about a more sensible and more conciliatory attitude on the part of the parties than might otherwise be expected to prevail before the mediation, and may produce a recognition of the strengths and weaknesses by each party of his own case and of that of his opponent, and a willingness to accept the give and take essential to a successful mediation. What appears to be incapable of mediation before the mediation process begins often proves capable of satisfactory resolution later.’
In this case the claimant was so seriously disturbed that he was fixated on the claim and incapable of a balanced evaluation. The defendant should not be refused his costs.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1051 (Ch), [2003] 1 Lloyds Rep 379, [2001] EWHC 1051 (Ch), [2003] EWHC 9026 (Costs), [2003] 2 Costs LR 153, [2002] CP Rep 59, [2002] Lloyds Rep PN 508

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dunnett v Railtrack plc CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant had appealed a judgment against her. The court itself recommended that the parties use a method of alternate dispute resolution, to avoid the need for appeal. The defendant refused, not wishing to make any payment over and above the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs Com Ltd CA 3-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged trade mark infringement by the respondents by the use of a mark in a pop-up advert.
Held: The own-name defence to trade mark infringement is limited. Some confusion may be allowed if overall the competition was not unfair . .
Appeal From – Hurst v Leeming CA 23-Jul-2002
. .
Appeal from – Robert Alfred Hurst v Ian Leeming ChD 14-Mar-2003
. .
See Also – Hurst v Leeming SCCO 9-May-2003
. .
Cited – Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc CA 11-May-2004
The court considered the effect on costs orders of a refusal to take part in alternate dispute resolution procedures. The defendant Trust had refused to take the dispute to a mediation. In neither case had the court ordered or recommended ADR.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Costs

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.174241

Gourlay, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board: CA 14 Jul 2017

Does the established practice of the High Court, to make no order for costs for or against an inferior tribunal or court which plays no active part in a judicial review of one of its decisions, extend to the Board?

Judges:

Gloster VP CA, David Richards, Kickinbottom LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1003, [2017] 1 WLR 4107, [2017] WLR(D) 474

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

First Instance main judgment – Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gourlay, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board SC 4-Dec-2020
The appellant life prisoner had successfully challenged a decision of the parole board, but had later been refused his costs on the basis that the Board had been acting in effect as a judicial body. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Costs

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.589928

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 involved in very substantial litigation over an alleged nuisance. The claimants’ lawyers had acted under a conditional fee agreement, and were successful at trial. The defendants objected to the payment of a proportion of the success fee payable by the claimants to their solicitors, and of the After the Evenet Insurance premium.
Held: The system was compatible with the defendants’ human rights. The aims of the scheme were, to reduce the burden of legal aid, to discourage weak claims and to facilitate court access. Tyey did so by transferring the burden of costs to an unsuccessful defendant. Those were legitimate aims, and the means were proportionate.
‘there is a powerful argument that the 1999 Act scheme is compatible with the Convention for the simple reason that it is a general measure which was (i) justified by the need to widen access to justice to litigants following the withdrawal of legal aid; (ii) made following wide consultation and (iii) fell within the wide area of discretionary judgment of the legislature and rule-makers to make. On that basis, it is no answer to say that other measures could have been taken which would have operated less harshly on non-rich respondents: the reasoning of the ECtHR at para 110 of the Animal Defenders case is particularly apposite here. ‘

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath

Citations:

[2015] UKSC 50, [2015] 1 WLR 3485, [2015] 4 Costs LO 507, [2015] WLR(D) 332, [2015] HRLR 16, UKSC 2012/0076

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC 50, SC 2014 46/13, SC 50 Summ, SC 2014 46/13 Summ

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Access to Justice Act 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .
See Also – Coventry (T/A RDC Promotions and Another v Lawrence and Others CA 27-Feb-2012
The appellants, owners of a motor sport racing circuit, appealed against a finding that their activities constituted a nuisance, given that they had planning permissions for the use.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had erred in holding . .
Principal judgment – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Adjourned from – 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 – Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
Cited – Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note) CA 21-Mar-2002
The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate.
Held: In such . .
Cited – Callery v Gray (1) and (2) HL 27-Jun-2002
Success fees and ATE premiums were recoverable
Objection was made to a claimed uplift of 20% sought by the plaintiff’s solicitors. The defendant’s insurers said that there had been little at risk for them.
Held: The system of conditional fees insurance had been introduced to remedy defects . .
Cited – Atack v Lee and Another CA 16-Dec-2004
Defendant insurers had challenged conditional fee agreements involving a two stage success fee. Both cases took place before limitations were introduced by Callery v Gray.
Held: It would be wrong to apply Callery v Gray retrospectively. A two . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
Cited – Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council CA 31-Jul-2006
The Court considered the validity of after the event legal expenses insurance and conditional fee agreements schemes, and in particular whether an ATE premium was recoverable by a successful claimant. The damages had been agreed in the sum of pounds . .
Cited – Animal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport HL 12-Mar-2008
The applicant, a non-profit company who campaigned against animal cruelty, sought a declaration of incompatibility for section 321(2) of the 2003 Act, which prevented adverts with political purposes, as an unjustified restraint on the right of . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-2008
The Mirror had published a picture of Naomi Campbell leaving a rehabilitation clinic. They appealed a decision in which having been found to have infringed her privacy by a covertly taken photograph, they had then been ordered to pay very . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Swift v Secretary of State for Justice CA 18-Mar-2013
The claimant appealed against refusal of a declaration that the 1976 Act infringed her human rights. She had been cohabiting for six months, when her partner was killed in an accident at work for which a third party was liable. Because she had not . .
Cited – Animal Defenders International v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of permission for non-governmental organisation to place television advert owing to statutory prohibition of political advertising: no . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
Cited – Halloran v Delaney CA 6-Sep-2002
The claimant had succeeded in his claim for personal injuries, and had issued costs only proceedings. The defendant challenged the ‘success fee’ claimed as part of the conditional fee arrangement.
Held: The costs recoverable were to be . .
Cited – In re Claims Direct Test Cases CA 12-Feb-2003
The parties sought repayment as part of their costs of insurance premiums paid by claimants undertaking litigation.
Held: The underwriters charged andpound;140.00 for each case. Claims Direct charged a premium of andpound;1,250.00 for each . .
Cited – KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council CA 27-Apr-2005
(Practice Note) The solicitor appealed an order which made the success fee payable different at different stages of the court action.
Held: The court had no power to make such an order. To the extent that the CPR might suggest otherwise they . .
Cited – Crane v Canons Leisure Centre CA 19-Dec-2007
Sums paid out by a solicitor to his costs draughtsman are profit costs as part of the base costs to which the success fee mark-up under a conditional fee agreement applies, rather than disbursements. The defining characteristic was whether the . .
Cited – C (acting by her litigation friend JF) v W CA 19-Dec-2008
The court considered the proper basis for a success fee payable on a conditional fee agreement where, when signed, the defendant had already admitted liability. The claim was by a woman after being injured in a car driven by her brother. By the time . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .

Cited by:

Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others SC 11-Apr-2017
Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Human Rights

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.550391

Joseph and Others v Spiller and Another: QBD 20 Nov 2012

Costs after finding in favour of claimants but with merely nominal damages. Tugendhat J explained that his decision to award only nominal damages was because he had concluded ‘it would be an affront to justice if [the claimant] were to be awarded more than a nominal sum for general damages’.

Judges:

Mr Justice Tugendhat

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3278 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Spiller and Another v Joseph and Others SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants had published remarks on its website about the reliability of the claimant. When sued in defamation, they pleaded fair comment, but that was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded, and the fair . .
See Also – Joseph and Others v Spiller and Another QBD 26-Oct-2012
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.465901

In re Realstar Ltd: ChD 30 Aug 2007

‘application for an injunction to restrain the respondent from proceeding with a winding up petition against the applicant. It is now agreed that the petition should be dismissed and the only issue before me is one of costs. The applicant asks for its costs of this application upon an indemnity basis.’

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2921 (Ch), [2008] BPIR 1391

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.381527

Al-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another: QBD 29 Jul 2005

The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the exceptional case where one party or the other can demonstrate a high degree of probability of success. It would be impractical to enforce an award of costs in favour of a successful defendant agaist a claimant resident in the Sudan. This was not to act with a lack of comity toward that court, but to acknowledge that the two systems had different policies. ‘this is overwhelmingly a case for an order for security. I bear in mind proportionality, but I also need to have very much in focus the evidence of the enormous expenditure which the Defendants have already had to incur in investigating the situation in Sudan because of the way the case has been framed against them. ‘

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1688 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions CA 1995
The court set out the principles to be applied by the court upon an application for security for costs.
1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light of all the relevant . .
Cited – Mealey Horgan Plc v Horgan QBD 6-Jul-1999
The failure to serve witness statements in time could be used disallow additional evidence to be served only in extreme circumstances. Such a failure can be marked in costs. An order to a party to make a payment into court should be used only in the . .
Cited – Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait CA 21-Dec-2001
The claimant appealed against a decision to strike out her claim for want of prosecution, and a failure to pay a sum ordered as security for costs. She had put jewelry with the defendants for safe keeping, and alleged it had been stolen. The lock on . .
Cited – Texuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc ComC 17-May-2004
Where the court concludes that it may be effectively impossible to enforce an order for payment of costs, then this situation would provide ‘an objective justification for the court exercising its discretion to make an order for payment of the full . .
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 – Brimko Holdings Limited v Eastman Kodak Company 2004
The defendant sought security for costs. The court considered the burden of proof in such a claim: ‘. . the court should not restrict its evaluation of the ability of a claimant to provide security to the means of the claimant itself. If the . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .

Cited by:

Cited – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 7-Mar-2006
The claimant resided in Romania, and sought damages for libel. The magazine had obtained an order for security for costs. An offer had been made to cover the sum ordered, and no stifling could now happen.
Held: Any order for security costs in . .
Appeal from – Al-Koronky and Another v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another CA 28-Jul-2006
The claimants sought damages after publication of articles alleging severe mistreatment of a servant. One defendant had settled and apologised, but the defendant publisher and author had persisted with the allegation. The claimants who lived in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.229280

Musa King v Telegraph Group Ltd: SCCO 18 May 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 90030 (Costs), [2004] 3 Costs LR 449

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
See Also – Musa King v Telegraph Group Limited QBD 9-Jun-2003
. .

Cited by:

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 . .
See Also – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
See Also – King v Telegraph Group Ltd SCCO 2-Dec-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.220198

Solutia UK Limited v Griffiths: CA 26 Apr 2001

The court considered issues relating to the appropriateness of the claimants instructing London solicitors in a case in which those solicitors had submitted a bill of costs totalling pounds 220,000 in connection with a claim in which their clients had recovered pounds 90,000. Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘So surely case management powers will allow a judge in the future to exercise the power of limiting costs, either indirectly or even directly, so that they are proportionate to the amount involved.’
Mance LJ said: ‘The present litigation was conducted under the old rules preceding the Woolf reforms. It is to be hoped that subsequent to the Woolf reforms judges conducting cases will make full use of their powers under the Practice Direction about costs, section 6, which appears in the Civil Procedure White Book 43/PD-006, to obtain estimates of costs and to exercise their powers in respect of cost and case management to keep costs within the bounds of the proportionate in accordance with the overriding objective.’

Judges:

Latham.Mance LJJ, Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 736, [2001] 2 Costs LR 247, [2001] CP Rep 92, [2002] PIQR P16, [2001] CPLR 419

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A B and others v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust QBD 9-May-2003
The claimants were involved in a group litigation with regard to the removal of organs without consent from deceased children. The defendant sought an order capping the costs which might be claimed.
Held: In GLO cases the desirability of . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Smith and Others v Ministry of Defence QBD 30-Jun-2011
Claims were made after the deaths of British troops on active service in Iraq. In one case the deaths were from detonations of improvised explosive devices, and on others as a result of friendly fire. It was said that there had been a foreseeable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.190133

Roache v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd: 1998

In looking at questions of costs in libel actions it is often appropriate to consider, as a matter of substance and reality, who was the true winner in the proceedings.

Citations:

[1998] EMLR 161

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Christie v Wilson and Others CA 13-Jan-1999
The second defendant appealed an order that he pay the costs of the claimant in his successful defamation action. The action had been decided by a jury rejecting the assertion that the claimant an athlete had used drugs.
Held: There was no . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others ChD 23-Jan-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.192279

A B and others v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust: QBD 9 May 2003

The claimants were involved in a group litigation with regard to the removal of organs without consent from deceased children. The defendant sought an order capping the costs which might be claimed.
Held: In GLO cases the desirability of ensuring that costs are kept within bounds makes it unnecessary for the court to require exceptional circumstances before exercising its discretion to make a costs cap order. Any costs cap should only relate to the costs incurred in relation to generic issues. An order was made identifying limits to the separate areas. The court’s general powers of case management were sufficiently wide to encompass the making of a costs capping order both in group litigation and in other actions.

Judges:

Gage J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1034 (QB), Gazette 22-Apr-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Davies v Eli Lilly and Co (Opren Litigation) CA 1987
The powers in the section together with the power to make orders for costs under Order 62 of the Rules of the Supreme Court included the power to make a pre-emptive order for costs.
Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘In these circumstances the judge . .
Cited – Solutia UK Limited v Griffiths CA 26-Apr-2001
The court considered issues relating to the appropriateness of the claimants instructing London solicitors in a case in which those solicitors had submitted a bill of costs totalling pounds 220,000 in connection with a claim in which their clients . .
Cited – The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others QBD 17-Dec-2002
The applicant sought an advisory order from the court to interpret the meaning of United Nations Security Council resolution no 1441 with regard to steps to be taken under the resolution in the event of the failure of Iraq to comply.
Held: A . .
Cited – Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note) CA 21-Mar-2002
The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate.
Held: In such . .

Cited by:

Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Health Professions, Costs

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.184639

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: The rules now allowed orders akin to orders for security for costs in a wider range of cases. Before making such an order the court must be sensitive to the possibility of injustice, and the court should always be on its guard against ‘exorbitant applications for summary judgment . . in a misguided attempt to obtain conditional orders for security for costs’. Orders might now also be made against defendants on the basis that the defence had a limited chance of success, and therefore a similarly based order must be available against a claimant. The court may approach an application for security on the footing that there is ‘something that may not be bona fide’ about the conduct of the claim, in which case the court may come to the conclusion that ‘the other side should have some financial security or protection’.
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘That, however, is by no means to say that the court should ordinarily penalise breaches of the rules and the like by making orders for payment into court under rule 3.1(5). Quite the contrary. The one case drawn to our attention in which this question has been considered – Buckley J’s judgment in Mealey Horgan plc -v- Horgan (transcript 24 May 1999, briefly reported in The Times, 6 July 1999), to which reference is made in paragraph 3.1.5 of the Annual Practice – held that it would be inappropriate to order a defendant to give security as a penalty for failure to serve witness statements in time when that had prejudiced neither the trial nor the claimant. Buckley J suggested, however, that such an order might be appropriate if ‘there is a history of repeated breach of timetables or of court orders or if there is something in the conduct of the party which gives rise to suspicion that they may not be bona fide and the court thinks the other side should have some financial security or protection’. That seems to me to point the way admirably: a party only becomes amenable to an adverse order for security under rule 3.1(5) (or perhaps 3.1(2)(m)) once he can be seen either to be regularly flouting proper court procedures (which must inevitably inflate the costs of the proceedings) or otherwise to be demonstrating a want of good faith – good faith for this purpose consisting of a will to litigate a genuine claim or defence as economically and expeditiously as reasonably possible in according with the over-riding objective.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 24-Jul-2002, Gazette 19-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 998, [2003] 1 WLR 275

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Mealey Horgan Plc v Horgan QBD 6-Jul-1999
The failure to serve witness statements in time could be used disallow additional evidence to be served only in extreme circumstances. Such a failure can be marked in costs. An order to a party to make a payment into court should be used only in the . .
See Also – Olatawura v Abiloye CA 14-Mar-2002
Appeal from strike out of claim for failure to pay sum into court. . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
Cited – Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Plc and Another ChD 14-Oct-2010
The claimant sought damages alleging breach of copyright by the defendant author saying she had copied large parts of the claimant’s work in her book ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’. The defendant now sought summary judgment, saying the action . .
Cited – Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Plc and Another ChD 18-Mar-2011
Further applications in defendant’s application for summary judgment and or security for costs in the claimant’s claim alleging copyright infringement.
Held: The claimant was ordered to pay a sum of andpound;50,000 as security for costs.
Cited – Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd and Another CA 14-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against an order requiring him to deposit a substantial sum as security for costs for the bringing of his action for copyright infringement in respect of the Harry Potter series of books.
Held: The appeal failed. The . .
Cited – Huscroft v P and O Ferries Ltd CA 21-Dec-2010
Second appeal against order requiring sum for security for costs to be paid into court and in default for the claim to be struck out.
Held: The Court considered its jurisdiction to make an order for security for costs under rule 3.1 and, . .
Cited – S v Suren and Another QBD 10-Sep-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.174335

Musa King v Telegraph Group Limited: QBD 9 Jun 2003

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Eady

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1312 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
See Also – Musa King v Telegraph Group Ltd SCCO 18-May-2004
. .
See Also – King v Telegraph Group Ltd SCCO 2-Dec-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.183350

Mcvicar v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 May 2002

It was not inconsistent with article 6 to expect both claimants and defendants in defamation proceedings to act in person.

Citations:

46311/99, [2002] ECHR 431, (2002) 35 EHRR 22, [2002] ECHR 436

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See also – Christie v Wilson and Others CA 13-Jan-1999
The second defendant appealed an order that he pay the costs of the claimant in his successful defamation action. The action had been decided by a jury rejecting the assertion that the claimant an athlete had used drugs.
Held: There was no . .

Cited by:

Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Defamation, Costs

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.172177

Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust v Hyde: QBD 20 Jan 2016

Appeal from the decision of the costs judge that the Claimant was entitled to recover the costs of her clinical negligence action against the Trust via a Conditional Fee Agreement with her solicitors. Master Rowley rejected the Trust’s submission that the CFA was unenforceable in circumstances where a Community Legal Services funding certificate for the action had never been discharged by CLS.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Soole

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 72 (QB), [2018] 1 WLR 597, [2016] 1 Costs LR 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.560097

Young v Young: FD 22 Nov 2013

The parties disputed financial arrangements following their divorce. Moor J said: ‘This case has been quite extraordinary even by the standards of the most bitter of matrimonial breakdowns. It has been conducted in the full glare of the Media. Extremely serious allegations have been bandied around like confetti. Some of these allegations can only be described as ‘wild’. The case has cost the Wife millions of pounds in litigation fees. It has taken some six and a half years to come to trial. There have been around 65 separate hearings. At an earlier stage, I committed the Husband to prison for six months for contempt of court. I am now going to have to make a large number of findings of fact in relation to matters that are very hotly in issue. I have also decided that I have to be highly critical of the way in which the case has been conducted at various times by both parties. In many respects, this is about as bad an example of how not to litigate as any I have ever encountered. ‘

Judges:

Moor J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3637 (Fam), [2014] 2 Costs LO 136, [2014] Fam Law 291, [2014] 2 FCR 495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Costs

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.518392

Manchester City Council v G and Others: CA 2 Aug 2011

The Council had been found to have wrongfully deprived the applicant of his liberty. They appealed now against an award of costs made against them.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge the power to depart from the usual order made under rule 157 where unreasonable conduct was found.

Judges:

Laws, Longmore, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 939

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Court of Protection rules 157

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – G v E and Others CoP 26-Mar-2010
E Was born with and still suffered severe learning difficulties. The court was asked as to the extent of his capacity to make decisions, and as to where he should live, with a family member, the carer or with the local authority, which had removed . .
Appeal from – G v E and Others FD 21-Dec-2010
(Court of Protection) Baker J awarded costs against a local authority which had been guilty of misconduct which, he held, justified departure from the general rule. He observed: ‘Parties should be free to bring personal welfare issues to the Court . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Family

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443234