Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Costs - From: 1960 To: 1969

This page lists 23 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
In re Moritz [1960] Ch 251
1960
CA
Wynn-Parry LJ
Trusts, Costs, Litigation Practice
Trustees had denied the defendants a sight of the exhibits to affidavits. Their' counsel argued for a settled practice that where an application is made by trustees for directions of the Beddoe kind, then the proposed defendant beneficiaries should not necessarily see all the evidence relating to the dispute. Counsel for the proposed beneficiary defendants, argued that he should be entitled to attend argue for his clients, on all matters including ones based on the so-far denied exhibits, and that it was for the Judge to say if those arguments were heard in the presence of parties other than the trustees who sought the directions of the court, though where one was considering beneficiaries and where their trust estate might bear the expense of the proposed litigation, it was beneficiaries' money that was being spent or being proposed to be spent. Held: Wynn-Parry J said: "Speaking for myself, so far as I know, it has been the practice of this court, without exception, over a great many years, that where, in such a case as this, application is made by a trustee ex necessis where there are disputes, for directions from the court as to whether or not proceedings should be brought against the defendants, those defendants are not entitled to be heard upon that application. The court acts upon such evidence as is placed before it and it expresses itself one way or the other." and
"As I understand it, the practice in this Division is that where a trustee finds it is compelled to ask for the directions of the court as to whether or not certain proceedings should be taken, while it is proper and indeed necessary to join the parties against whom the proposed relief is sought, those parties should not be present in Chambers when the matter is debated; and they should not be furnished with the evidence upon which the court is asked to act… Very frequently, the leave to proceed is limited, for instance, up to discovery, but it would seem to me to be a quite unjustified inroad upon what I conceive to be a very useful practice if I were to allow this application and to allow the two defendants not merely to be present at the beginning of the proceedings when the originating summons is heard, but to remain there throughout those proceedings and to have all the evidence on which the trustees are asking the court for its directions. I know of no precedent for it, and, in my view, it is completely against the established practice."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Liverpool Justices ex parte Roberts [1960] 1 WLR 587
1960
QBD
Lord Parker CJ, Ashworth Salmon JJ
Magistrates, Costs
The defendant challenged a conviction where the magistrates had not heard from him. The magistrates were not reprsented at the appeal. Held: The appela was successful, but the court declined to award costs against the magistrates: "So far as costs against the justices are concerned, it has been the practice not to grant costs against justices or tribunals merely because they have made a mistake in law but only if they have acted improperly, that is to say, perversely or with some disregard for the elementary principles which every court ought to obey, and even then only if it was a flagrant instance." It is the general practice not to award costs against a party who did not appear to resist an application of this sort unless, for instance, he had materially contributed to the error giving rise to the application.
1 Citers


 
Macaulay (Tweeds) Ltd v Independent Harris Tweed Producers Ltd [1961] RPC 184
1961

Cross J
Litigation Practice, Costs
The court considered an allegation of non-disclosure in the case of an application to serve proceedings abroad: "If the judge is satisfied that there was no intention to deceive and the mis-statement is not grossly negligent, he may think it better not to visit it with a penalty which may fall as heavily on the defendants as on the plaintiffs, since the plaintiffs can, ex hypothesi, make a fresh application which will succeed."
1 Citers


 
Berry v British Transport Commission (1962) 1 QB 306; [1961] 3 All ER 65; [1961] 3 WLR 450; 105 Sol Jo 587
1961
CA
Devlin LJ
Torts - Other, Costs, Damages
The plaintiff had been prosecuted by the defendant for pulling the emergency cord on a train without proper cause. After acquittal and payment of part of her costs, she sued for malicious prosecution, saying the damages were the part of her defence costs not awarded. The defendant replied that this was not claimable loss. Held: The award of costs included no element of compensation, and that therefore her claim stood.
Devlin said: "the rule of the law of damages that if costs were awarded in hostile civil litigation nothing beyond the taxed amount could be recovered by the successful party from the unsuccessful party rested on the presumption that the award of costs (as between party and party) gave compensation for the cost of litigation so far as the law allowed, and the reason for the rule was that the law could not permit the question of the amount of costs to be litigated a second time between the same parties in new proceedings; it was however a fiction that costs taxed between party and party were the same as costs reasonably incurred and the law should recognise that an assessment of damage and a taxation of party and party costs were two different things. The rule should not be extended to criminal cases, because the principles governing the award of costs in civil and criminal cases were not the same; for in criminal cases a successful defendant had no prima facie entitlement to an award of costs, as the prosecution was brought in the public interest, and an award of costs need not be directed to quantifying the damage and indemnifying the accused according to a conventional measure."
A charge of a statutory offence punishable only by fine would not support an action for malicious prosecution unless the charge was such as to injure the "fair fame" (that is, was necessarily and naturally defamatory) of the person charged.
Railways Act 1868
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hultquist v Universal Pattern and Precision Engineering Company Limited [1962] All ER 266
1962
CA
Sellers LJ
Costs
Where there is a payment into court with a denial of liability, costs will follow the event, and it is rare for a plaintiff to get his costs on the issue of liability. Sellers LJ said: "The action of tort consists of wrongdoing and damage resulting therefrom and the Plaintiff must prove both to obtain a judgment. On the face of it there can be no complaint and no ground for an order for costs on the issue of liability because the plaintiff is being called on to prove a case to establish his right to damages and has failed to get more than the amount in court. A payment into court is an offer to dispose of the action and if accepted prevents all further costs. A plaintiff who continues an action after a payment in takes a risk and cannot normally complain if he has to pay all the costs which his acceptance of an award would have avoided."


 
 Wilkinson v Wilkinson; CA 1962 - [1962] 3 WLR 1; [1963] P 1; [1962] 1 All ER 922
 
Cope v United Dairies [1963] 2 QB 33
1963

Megaw LJ
Costs
Megaw LJ said: "Mr Hames agreed that the taxing master could not properly refuse to carry out an order for taxation, in whole or in part, because he considered it to be wrong or ultra vires, and the same applies to a court on review. With that proposition, I agree."
1 Citers


 
Crystall v Crystall [1963] 1 WLR 574; [1963] 2 All ER 330
1963
CA
Willmer LJ
Legal Aid, Costs
When considering an order that a legally aided party should pay all or part of any costs, one of the circumstances, and a compelling circumstance, is the means of the party himself. Whatever one may think of the conduct of a party it would still not be right to make an order for costs against him which was unreasonable having regard to his means.
Legal Aid Act 1949 2(2)(c)
1 Citers



 
 Grangeside Properties v Collingwood Securities; 1964 - [1964] 1 WLR 139

 
 Carl Zeiss Siftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2); CA 1965 - [1965] Ch 596
 
Re Jeffkins Indentures [1965] 1 WLR 375
1965

Cross J
Costs, Land
"a plaintiff seeking a declaration that restrictive covenants do not affect his property is expected to pay his own costs. He is also expected to pay the costs of any defendants who enter an appearance down to the point in proceedings at which they have had a full opportunity of considering the matter and deciding whether or not to oppose the application. Any defendant who then decides to continue, and appears unsuccessfully before the judge, does so at his own risk as to his own costs at that stage. Such defendant should not however be ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs."
1 Citers


 
Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation [1965] 1 WLR 112
1965

Pennycuick J
Costs
The paying party under an order for costs objected to the amount of leadig counsel's fees. Held: Pennycuick J discussed Rule 28(2) and the Smith -v- Bullins Case: “The words ‘or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the rights of the party whose costs are being taxed’ must, I think, now be read in after the word ‘necessary’ in the statement of principle made by Malins V-C"
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Anderson v Hills Automobiles (Woodford) Ltd [1965] CLY 3177; [1965] 1 WLR 745
1965

Scott LJ
Legal Aid, Costs

1 Citers


 
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Eastwood [1965] 1 Ch 112
1965
ChD

Costs

1 Citers


 
Emmanuel Stipperger v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment) C-49/64; [1965] EUECJ C-49/64
8 Jul 1965
ECJ

European, Costs
Europa If an applicant has been misled and induced to make his application by reason of the ambiguous drafting of a measure by an institution then he has been unreasonably caused to incur his costs which must be borne by the administration
[ Bailii ]

 
 Cook v Swinfen; CA 1967 - [1967] 1 WLR 457
 
Alois Bauer v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-15/67; [1967] EUECJ C-15/67
12 Dec 1967
ECJ

European, Costs
ECJ Procedure - interest in taking legal proceedings - type of interest justifying an application to the court Costs - applications by officials of the European Communities - costs which one party has unreasonably caused the opposite party to incur (rules of procedure, second subparagraph of article 69(3) and article 70)
[ Bailii ]
 
Hill v Archbold [1968] 1 QB 686
1968
CA
Denning, Danckwerts LJJ
Litigation Practice, Costs
Denning LJ said: "Much maintenance is considered justifiable today which would in 1914 have been considered obnoxious. Most of the actions in our courts are supported by some association or other, or by the State itself. Comparatively a few litigants bring suits, or defend them at their own expense. Most claims by workmen against their employers are paid for by a trade union. Most defences of motorists are paid for by insurance companies. This is perfectly justifiable and is accepted by everyone as lawful, provided always that the one who supports the litigation, if it fails, pays the costs of the other side".
Danckwerts LJ said: "the law of maintenance depends upon the question of public policy, and public policy . . is not a fixed and immutable matter. It is a conception which, if it has any sense at all, must be alterable by the passage of time."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Hastings Licensing Justices ex parte Lovibond [1968] 1 WLR 735; [1968] 2 All ER 270
1968
QBD
Lord Parker CJ
Magistrates, Costs
The court granted an order of certiorari to quash a decision of licensing justices. The magistrates had not resisted the appeal, but commercial rivals of the licensee had persisted with their objection. Held: "it is very rare that this court makes any award in regard to costs on an application for one of the prerogative orders, unless the other party has appeared and contested the application. " In this case however an order was made against the respondents up to the point where they had ceased opposition.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Re Wembley Park Estate Co Ltd's Transfer [1968] Ch 491
1968

Goff J
Costs, Land
The court confirmed the rule in Jeffkins and added that "the costs payable to the defendant should be paid on the common fund basis "since the obtaining of the order is something in the nature of a luxury to the plaintiff for which he ought to pay."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
B (M) v B (R) (Note) [1968] 1 WLR 1182
1968
CA
Willmer LJ
Children, Costs
The court suggested that it would have been wrong to make an order for costs in a custody dispute because it would exacerbate the feelings between the parents to the ultimate detriment of the child.
1 Citers


 
Acciaierie San Michele Spa (In Liquidation) v High Authority Of The ECSC [1968] EUECJ C-58/65
22 Feb 1968
ECJ

European, Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
In re Nossen's Letter Patent [1969] 1 WLR 638
1969


Intellectual Property, Costs

1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.