Etherton J considered a wasted costs order application.
Held: The case did not satisfy the merits test in paragraph 53.6(1)(a) CPD. Etherton J considered the proportionality test in paragraph 53.6(1)(b) also. In that case the costs in issue were 75% of $98,000. The costs of the applicant for wasted costs to date were $24,000 and the costs of the respondents together so far were $46,000. Thus $70,000 so far had been spent to seek an order for $73,500. Etherton J held that the costs of pursuing the wasted costs jurisdiction were so disproportionate to the costs of the issue that even if he had been of a different view on the merits test, he would not be satisfied that the application or its further pursuit would be justified.
Judges:
Etherton J
Citations:
[2001] EWHC 530 (Ch), [2002] Lloyd’s Rep PN 461
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Riles 53.6(1)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 18-Apr-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order.
Held: The court only has jurisdiction to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.346882