It was submitted by the receiving parties (being 7 out of 8 defendants) that they should receive an equal portion of the total costs of the defendants by number, that is to say 7/8ths. The taxing master disagreed, permitting each defendant 7/8ths of the general costs of the action, and costs relating to their defences and such part of the fee for instructions for brief and counsel’s fees as may be attributable to their defences.
Held: The approach taken was a rule of thumb, convenient in an ordinary case. The principle contest had been between the plaintiff and the other, unsuccessful, defendant. No authority compelled the court to allow simply a share of the overall costs of the action in every class of case, even if to follow it would result in injustice. To do so would ‘be to fly in the face of the generally accepted principle as stated in Ellingsen’s case? that the successful party is to be recompensed the liability he had reasonably incurred in defending himself”
[1951] 1 Ch 10
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ellingsen v Det Skandinaviske Compani CA 1919
The court considered an apportionment of the legal costs as between the parties.
Held: On the authorities, each client was only liable to the solicitors for half of the costs of the joint items of defence and the whole of any separate items of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 14-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the success of a sale by a mortgagee in possession of various properties. The parties disputed the apportionment of costs.
Held: The appeal failed. Where there is no express agreement concerning the division of costs, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.261318