Hill v Bailey: ChD 25 Nov 2003

Costs orders had been made against each party in favour of the other. One was legally aided.
Held: Though the legally aided party was entitled to some protection against enforcement of an order for costs, he was not protected against the other party exercising a right of set off under the mutual costs orders. A set-off does not place the person against whom it is asserted under any obligation to pay, but merely reduces the amount that he can recover.
Lightman J
Times 05-Jan-2004, Gazette 15-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 All ER 1210, [2003] EWHC 2835 (Ch), [2004] 1 All ER 1210, [2004] CP Rep 24, [2004] 1 Costs LR 135
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 11
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedLockley v National Blood Transfusion Service CA 1992
There was an interlocutory dispute over the granting of an extension of time for service of the defence. The legally aided plaintiff challenged the costs orders made by the district registrar and the judge. Each ordered that the costs be the . .
CitedHicks v Russell Jones and Walker 27-Oct-2000
. .

Cited by:
CitedSonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 January 2021; Ref: scu.190227