Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 3): ChD 8 Jul 1999

The Civil Procedure Rules have not changed the common law rules which say that an interlocutory order for costs could not be varied by another judge sitting at first instance, except only in exceptional circumstances where it appeared for example that fraud might be involved. To do so would be for the court to act as an appellate capacity on a matter it had decided itself: ‘when the court makes an order, only in the most exceptional circumstances such as those involving fraud or the slip rule, could the court revisit the order even where it is for costs. The court cannot act as an appellate court in respect of its own orders. It is not even as if the circumstances in which I am asked to revisit the order were not contemplated at the time when the order for costs was made.’


Neuberger J


Gazette 11-Aug-1999, Times 28-Sep-1999, [1999] EWHC 834 (Ch)




See alsoCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2) ChD 24-Mar-1999
The claimant intended to seek recovery of a very substantial sum from the defendant. On learning of the defendant’s intention to sell its assets, it sought an order freezing them.
Held: The court has the discretion to order a freezing of a . .
See alsoCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Limited Admn 26-Jun-1998
The court heard an appeal by the Commissioners from the VAT Duties Tribunal that ‘Spreadable butter’ and ‘Ammix butter’ from New Zealand made and imported by the respondent are ‘manufactured directly from milk or cream’, and are not ‘recombined . .

Cited by:

See alsoCustoms and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No.4) ChD 18-Oct-1999
. .
See AlsoCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd) CA 17-Aug-2000
When an appeal is lodged in a VAT dispute, the discretion as to whether to require the appellant to lodge security for costs in the appeal, was a decision exclusively to be decided by the tribunal itself. A decision as to such security could not be . .
CitedCS v ACS and Another FD 16-Apr-2015
Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires
W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79364