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: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 24 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.


 
 Leadbeater v Leadbeater; 1985 - [1985] FLR 789

 
 Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd; 1985 - [1985] 1 WLR 689
 
In re London Metallurgical Co [1895] 1 Ch 758
1985

Vaughan-Williams J
Insolvency, Costs
A costs order made against liquidators arising from proceedings they had taken, will usually have priority over the general expenses of the action. The list of expenses said nothing about the costs of litigation incurred by the liquidator or awarded against him. Costs awarded to a successful litigant had been recoverable in priority to the general costs of the liquidation. Rule 31 of the 1890 Insolvency rules did not change this practice.
1 Citers


 
Chapman v Chapman [1985] 1 All ER 757; [1985] 1 WLR 599
1985
ChD
Sir Robert Megarry VC
Wills and Probate, Costs
The plaintiff had been awarded her costs in a probate action, but had then failed to commence proceedings for taxation in time. When her solicitors did proceed, they gave no notice. She appealed an award of nominal costs only. Held: Order 3 rule 6 was general in its terms, and applied in such applications also. After a delay of more than three months, she should have given notice of her intention to apply for taxation. This was however only an irregularity. The defendant had been unable to show any prejudice from the delay, and the court would not infer any. The master's order would be discharged. The solicitors charges on presenting the bill would however be automatically disallowed.
1 Citers


 
Regina v West Yorkshire Coroner ex parte Smith [1985] 149 JP 97; [1985] QB 1096; [1985] 2 WLR 332; [1985] 129 SJ 131; [1985] 1 All ER 100
1985
QBD
Webster J
Coroners, Costs
The deceased's father sought an order prohibiting the coroner from conducting an inquest on his dead daughter. Among his grounds was that the coroner might appear to be biased because of an outstanding application for costs against the coroner arising out of an earlier application for judicial review reversing the Divisional Court and held that the coroner did have jurisdiction to conduct an inquest even though the deceased had died abroad. Held: There was no criticism of the coroner in those proceedings, and no suggestion of misconduct: "Mr Simon Brown submitted that it is singularly unusual for any order for costs to be made against a public judicial body in the absence of any misconduct on its part, even if that body appears at the proceedings to resist the application. Where the body does not appear at the proceedings to resist the application then in Mr Simon Brown's experience, he had never known of an order for costs being made against the judicial body in question in the absence of misconduct." The court approved this understanding.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Hammersmith Coroner ex parte Gray; CA 1986 - (1986) 151 JPR 209
 
Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The "Vimeira") [1986] AC 965; [1986] 2 WLR 1051; [1986] 2 All ER 409
1986
HL
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Costs
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now appealed. Held: The appeals were allowed. The court's discretion when awarding costs as conferred by section 51(3) was wide. Lord Goff of Chieveley said: 'thus ensuring that the court has, so far as possible, freedom of action, leaving it to the rule-making authority to control the exercise of discretion (if it thinks it right to do so) by the making of rules of court, and to the appellate courts to establish principles upon which the discretionary power may, within the framework of the statute and the applicable rules of court, be exercised.' The jurisdiction provided by this Section was not subject to any implied limitation that costs could only be awarded against those who were parties to the litigation. Non-parties could be ordered to pay costs where justice so required. Nevertheless, an order for the payment of costs by a non-party will always be exceptional, and a person or entity who had been ordered to pay such costs would be able to appeal against the order, even though he, she or it was not a party to the original action.
Lord Goff: ". . . it is not surprising to find the jurisdiction conferred under section 51(1), like its predecessors, to be expressed in wide terms. The subsection simply provides that 'the court shall have full power to determine by whom . . . the costs are to be paid.' Such a provision is consistent with a policy under which jurisdiction to exercise the relevant discretionary power is expressed in wide terms, thus ensuring that the court has, so far as possible, freedom of action, leaving it to the rule-making authority to control the exercise of discretion (if it thinks it right to do so) by the making of rules of court, and to the appellate courts to establish principles upon which the discretionary power may, within the framework of the statute and the applicable rules of court, be exercised. " and
"In the vast majority of cases, it would no doubt be unjust to make an award of costs against a person who is not a party to the relevant proceedings..... I do not, for my part, foresee any injustice flowing from the abandonment of that implied limitation. Courts of first instance are, I believe, well capable of exercising their discretion under the statute in accordance with reason and justice. I cannot imagine any case arising in which some order for costs is made, in the exercise of the court's discretion, against some person who has no connection with the proceedings in question. If any problem arises, the Court of Appeal can lay down principles for the guidance of judges of first instance; or the Supreme Court Rules Committee can propose amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court for the purpose of controlling the exercise of the statutory power vested in judges subject to rules of court. "
Supreme Court Act 1981 51(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] UKPC 5
5 Feb 1986
PC
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Roskill, Lord Griffiths
Costs
(Hong Kong) The Boad considered the costs payable for counsel on an appeal to the Board from Hong Kong
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Leary v Leary [1987] 1 WLR 72
1987
CA

Costs
The husband had obstructed ancillary relief proceedings, leading to prolonged hearings. The judge ordered a gross sum in costs, without allowing the husband to be heard first. Held: Under RSC Ord 62 r9(4) a judge could award a gross sum in lieu of taxed costs, and need not give any prior warning to the other party. The power was not subject to any formal limitation, but a judge must behave in a judicial manner. The judge here had acted within her powers and properly.
1 Citers


 
Orchard v South Eastern Electricity Board [1987] QB 565; [1987] 1 All ER 95; [1987] 2 WLR 102
1987
CA

Legal Professions, Costs
The threat of applications for a wasted costs order should not be used to intimidate, but if one side considers that the other to have behaved in an improper, unreasonable or negligent way and likely to cause a waste of costs, it is not objectionable to alert the other side to that view. Drawing the distinction between unacceptable intimidation and acceptable notice must depend on the professional judgment of those involved.
1 Citers


 
National Coal Board v Ridgeway [1987] ICR 641
1987
CA
Bingham LJ
Costs

1 Citers



 
 Davies v- Eli Lilley and Co; CA 1987 - [1987] 1 WLR 1136

 
 Davies v Eli Lilly and Co (Opren Litigation); CA 1987 - [1987] 1 WLR 1136; [1987] 3 All ER 94
 
Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 225; [1987] 2 All ER 40
1987
ChD
Vinelott J
Equity, Insolvency, Costs
Vinelott J doubted whether a receiver's remuneration could be recovered as litigation costs
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 420; [1987] 1 All ER 1074
1987

Brown-Wilkinson VC
European, Costs
When considering an application for security for costs against a litigant resident in the EU, the courts must allow for the new additional scope for enforcement of any judgment under the 1982 Act. In this case, an order for security for costs against a plaintiff German company was refused because these additional powers made it unnecessary. The court should not go into the merits of the claim in detail unless it can clearly be demonstrated that there is a high degree of probability of success or failure.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982$ 2(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Shrewsbury Coroner's Court ex parte British Parachute Association (1987) 152 JPR 123; Times, 21 September 1987
21 Sep 1987
QBD
Lloyd LJ and Mann J
Coroners, Costs
Coroners are forbidden by the rules to make recommendations to a jury as to their verdict. Despite the fact that the coroner was represented at the appeal, the court refused to make any order for costs against the coroner. This was not a case where they could express strong disapproval of the coroner, there being no special circumstances .
Coroners Rules 1984 (1984 No 552) 36(2)
1 Citers


 
Wimpey Construction (UK) Ltd v Martin Black and Co (Wire Ropes) Ltd 1988 ST 264
1988


Legal Professions, Costs
The provisions of the Table of Fees under the Rules of Court were only applicable to Scottish solicitors. The court set out how fees incurred to solicitors practising outside Scotland are recovered in a Scottish taxation of expenses. In summary: 1. If an English solicitor is properly employed in a Scottish litigation he is entitled to be remunerated for his work according to an English scale of remuneration. 2. Such remuneration is treated as part of the outlays in the account of expenses. 3. In considering the English account, the Auditor must in the first place determine which items on the account would be admissible in a Scottish party and party account. In order to do that, he may require the English account to be stated in such a form as to disclose clearly what items of work were in fact done by the English solicitors: ibid. at 1988 SC 288. At this stage the Auditor must obviously apply Scottish principles, in exactly the same way as he would when dealing with a party and party account rendered by Scottish solicitors. 4. Thereafter, the Auditor must discover what charges for the admitted items in the account are appropriate in accordance with English law and practice. The Auditor has a wide discretion as to how he goes about this task, although with an English account consulting the taxing master is an obvious step to take: ibid. at 1988 SC 288-289. At this stage, therefore, the Auditor must ascertain and apply the relevant English scale of charges.
1 Citers



 
 Sinclair-Jones v Kay; CA 1988 - [1989] 1 WLR 114; [1988] 2 All ER 611
 
Re Gosscott (Groundworks) Ltd [1988] BCLC 363
1988

Mervyn Davies J
Insolvency, Costs
The court had jurisdiction under section 51 to order that the costs of administration proceedings overtaken by a compulsory liquidation could be ordered to be treated as costs in the winding-up.
Supreme Court Act 1981 51
1 Citers


 
Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another [1989] AC 1280; [1988] UKHL 7; [1988] 3 All ER 737
1988
HL
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Goff of Chieveley
Evidence, Costs
A sub-contractor sought payment from the appellants under a construction contract for additional expenses incurred through disruption and delay. The appellants said they were liable to pay the costs, and were entitled to re-imbursement from the client, the respondent. The claim was compromised but without disclosing the detail underlying the sum agreed. The sub-contractor then claimed an additional sum, and sought disclosure of documents which had passed between the parties. The appellants claimed the protection of the 'without prejudice' rule. Held: The Court will not permit the phrase to be used to exclude an act of bankruptcy or to suppress a threat if an offer is not accepted. The exception for offers expressly made "without prejudice except as to costs" was recognised to be based on an express or implied agreement between the parties.
Lord Griffiths said: "The rule applies to exclude all negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement whether oral or in writing from being given in evidence. A competent solicitor will always head any negotiating correspondence 'without prejudice' to make clear beyond doubt that in the event of the negotiations being unsuccessful they are not to be referred to at the subsequent trial. However, the application of the rule is not dependent upon the use of the phrase 'without prejudice' and if it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that the parties were seeking to compromise the action, evidence of the content of those negotiations will, as a general rule, not be admissible at the trial and cannot be used to establish an admission or partial admission. I cannot therefore agree with the Court of Appeal that the problem in the present case should be resolved by a linguistic approach to the meaning of the phrase ‘ without prejudice ’. I believe that the question has to be looked at more broadly and resolved by balancing two different public interests namely the public interest in promoting settlements and the public interest in full discovery between parties to litigation."
However: "These cases show that the rule is not absolute and resort may be had to the 'without prejudice' material for a variety of reasons when the justice of the case requires it. It is unnecessary to make any deep examination of these authorities to resolve the present appeal but they all illustrate the underlying purpose of the rule which is to protect a litigant from being embarrassed by any admission made purely in an attempt to achieve a settlement."
Lord Griffiths said: "The 'without prejudice' rule is "a rule governing the admissibility of evidence founded on the public policy of encouraging litigants to settle their differences rather than litigate them to a finish". To try to identify admissions and withhold protection from the rest of without prejudice communications would be contrary to the objective of giving protection to the parties "to speak freely about all issues in the litigation both factual and legal when seeking compromise and, for the purpose of establishing a basis of compromise, admitting certain facts."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Harrison v Tew [1989] 1 QB 307
1989
CA
Dillon LJ
Legal Professions, Costs
The client sought only taxation of his solicitor's bill of costs, but more than twelve months after the bill had been paid, if not under the statutory provisions, then under the “inherent jurisdiction” of the Court. Held: Any inherent jurisdiction of the Court was ousted by the Act.
Solicitors Act 1974
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
J Sainsbury plc v Enfield London Borough Council [1989] 1 WLR 590
1989

Morritt J
Costs, Land
Morritt J first asked from what fact or facts might it be inferred that the intention in a conveyance was that restrictive covenants should enure for the benefit of the retained land, and recorded the contentions of the parties as follows: "On the first issue, the plaintiffs contend that the intention must be manifested in the conveyance in which the covenant was contained when construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, including any necessary implication in the conveyance from those surrounding circumstances. The defendants claim that such intention may be inferred from surrounding circumstances which fall short of those which would necessitate an implication in the conveyance itself." Held: The plaintiffs' submission was correct, and, having considered the surrounding circumstances: "There are no words in the conveyance indicating any such intention, nor do I consider the surrounding circumstances necessitate any implication." The successful applicant for a declaration under section 84(2) should be paid its costs by the defendants.
Law of Property Act 1925 84(2)
1 Citers


 
Finley v Glaxo Laboratories (1989) Costs Law Reports 106
1989

Hobhouse J
Costs, Legal Professions
Hobhouse J said: "I would not lend support to the adoption of an unduly low hourly rate and then seeking to put it right by applying a higher uplift percentage. The right approach is that which I have emphasised, namely to adopt a realistic approach to the hourly rate to reflect the actual cost of the fee earner involved, and then to apply an appropriate but not excessive uplift".
1 Citers



 
 Midland Marts v Hobday; ChD 1989 - [1989] 1 WLR 1143
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.