When dealing with an application to strike out, the judge should record his reasons for the finding, but it is sufficient if what he says shows the parties and, if need be, the Court of Appeal the basis on which he has acted. The court also considered the liability for costs: ‘By way of a footnote it should be specifically stated that neither as regards the court’s jurisdiction over costs under section 50 (1) of the [Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation)] Act of 1925 nor as regards the nature of the discretion to be exercised under it, is there any difference in principle between proceedings for civil contempt and other inter partes proceedings. In practice, however, upon committal proceedings the court can on the one hand naturally look at the general course to date of the relevant cause of action when assessing what order as to costs should be made and have regard to the extent of any right or title already established, but on the other hand must keep in mind that the liberty of the subject is involved and give that factor special weight.’
Sachs LJ
[1971] Ch 700, [1971] 2 All ER 378
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Eagil Trust Co Ltd v Pigott-Brown CA 1985
There is no duty on a judge, in giving his reasons, to deal with every argument presented by counsel in support of his case. When dealing with an application in chambers to strike out for want of prosecution a judge should give his reasons in . .
Cited – Symes v Phillips and others CA 19-May-2005
The applicant was in contempt of court. He successfully appealed a sentence of two years imprisonment, with the sentence being reduced to one year. Legally aided, he sought his costs from the claimant. The claimant replied that their part was only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.183371 br>