After a personal injury claim, the judge had apportioned liability and ordered each side to pay the costs of the other. The case had been allocated to the fast track.
Held: The appeal failed. The existence of the Conditional Fee Agreement did not affect the form of order. The award of costs remained the exercise of a judicial discretion, and such a decision should be interfered with only if clearly wrong. The judge had considered the relevant law and had not erred in principle, and nor was the decision one no reasonable tribunal could have reached.
Rafferty J
[2010] EWHC 1674 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 36.3(6)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Medway Oil and Storage Co Ltd v Continental Contractors Ltd HL 1929
The court set down the principles to be applied when apportioning costs between a claim and counterclaim. Where both the claim and the counter-claim are dismissed with costs, the amount that the Claimant will recover in defeating the counter-claim . .
Cited – Burchell v Bullard and others CA 8-Apr-2005
Each side had succeeded in part on their claims and counterclaims, but the Respondent was andpound;5,000 out of pocket. Each party had been ordered to pay the costs of the other.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had correctly recognised . .
Cited – Parkes v Martin CA 9-Jul-2009
The claimant appealed against the costs order made after a trial following a road traffic accident, awarding blame as to 65% for the Claimant and 35% to the defendant. The Defendant had requested costs in that proportion. After reminding himself of . .
Quoted – Bellenden (formerly Satterthwaite) v Satterthwaite CA 1948
The court considered the role of the appeal court in assessing an order for maintenance payable for a divorced wife. The judge’s decision had been made by an exercise of his discretion.
Held: Asquith LJ said: ‘It is, of course, not enough for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.420239