Application for non-party costs order against litigation funder. The third party denied that he was a person against whom an order could be made, and denied his formal involvement in the companies funding the litigation.
Held: Such an order must be exceptional, and is not to be made simply because a party has funded the action. The proceedings were speculative and had been pursued unreasonably, and under the direction of the third party. However in the action he had not behaved improperly, and had fulfilled a role akin to that of a solicitor. The third party costs application was refused.
 EWHC 2795 (QB)
Supreme Court Act 1981 51, Civil Procedure Rules 48.2.(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras CA 19-Jul-2006
A Mr Efremovich, a third party to the action was ordered to pay the costs of Petrobras and Brasoil which on the failure of its claim against them had been ordered to be paid by Petromec. The judge found that Mr Efromovich controlled the proceedings . .
Cited – Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson CA 4-May-1993
Nine rules were set out for allowing a costs order against someone who is not a party to the action. Such orders should be exceptional. The normal rule is that witnesses in either civil or criminal proceedings enjoy immunity from any form of civil . .
Cited – Metalloy Supplies Ltd (In Liquidation) v MA (UK) Ltd CA 7-Oct-1996
A costs order against liquidator of company in litigation is only rarely to be given. The court should ask who is the ‘real’ party to the litigation.
Millett LJ said: ‘[An order] may be made in a wide variety of circumstances where the third . .
Cited – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd and others (No. 2) PC 21-Jul-2004
PC (New Zealand) Costs were sought against a non-party, following an earlier determination by the Board.
Held: Jurisdiction to make such an order was not complete. Where the order sought was against a . .
Cited – Murphy, and Murphy v Young and Co’s Brewery Plc, Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc CA 20-Nov-1996
When an unsuccessful party has had its legal costs funded under legal expenses insurance, should the insurer be held liable to pay the successful party’s costs? The insurer had not instigated the litigation, nor controlled it, and could not be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.278223