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: 1994 To: 1994

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

 
London Borough of Sutton v Davis (Costs) (No 2) [1994] 2 FLR 569; [1994] 1 WLR 1317
1994

Wilson J
Family, Costs
In cases involving children costs awarded against one parent or another are exceptional since the court is anxious to avoid the situation where a parent may feel "punished" by the other parent which will reduce co-operation between them. This will only impinge ultimately on the welfare of the child or the children concerned.
Wilson J said: "Where the debate surrounds the future of a child, the proceedings are partly inquisitorial and the aspiration is that in their outcome the child is the winner and indeed the only winner. The court does not wish the spectre of an order for costs to discourage those with a proper interest in the welfare of the child from participating in the debate. Nor does it wish to reduce the chance of their co-operation around the future life of the child by casting one as the successful party entitled to his costs and another as the unsuccessful party obliged to pay them. The proposition applies in its fullest form to proceedings between parents and other relations; but it also applies to proceedings to which a local authority are a party. Thus, even when a local authority's application for a care order is dismissed, it is unusual to order them to pay the costs of the other parties."
1 Citers


 
P v P (Financial Provision: Non-disclosure) [1994] 1 FCR 293
1994

Thorpe J
Family, Costs
The applicant wife had been shown to have been guilty of considerable misconduct of the financial case. It was submitted that, as a result of that misconduct, the court should reduce the wife's award on the application of the Section 25(2)(g) criterion. Held: The appropriate penalty was in costs, not in a reduction in the assets awarded. Thorpe J said: "There was no principle that serious non-disclosure would always be penalised in costs."
The wife was shown under cross examination to have made a serious under-disclosure in her ancillary relief application. H argued that this should be reflected in the award to be made to her. Held: Thogh not invariably so, the consequences should be in an appropriate order for costs: "It seems to me that in that case such price as is to be paid by the dishonest litigant is a price in costs, not in reduction of the appropriate share of the available assets. The suggestion contained in the last sentence of Lincoln J's judgment that maxims of equity should be applied to deny or reduce relief I cannot follow. It seems to me that the court has a duty to discharge a statutory function on the application of statutory criteria, and maxims of equity have nothing to do with it."
Matrimonial Cause Act 1973 25(2)(g)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General of New Zealand [1994] 1 AC 466
1994
PC
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Costs, Commonwealth
The board declined to make an order for costs against the unsuccessful appellants where they were not pursuing the proceedings out of any motive of private gain, but "in the interests of taonga which is an important part of the heritage of New Zealand", and the judgments in the Court of Appeal had left an undesirable lack of clarity in an important area of the law which it was important for the Privy Council to examine.
1 Citers


 
Suffolk County Council v Rexmore Wholesale Service Limited [1994] 159 JP 390
1994
Admn
Buxton J
Criminal Practice, Costs
A costs order had been made against the prosecution, who now appealed. Held: It was necessary to look at the relevant decisions at the point the proceedings were instituted rather than applying a level of knowledge gathered later: "With the greatest respect to the Magistrates, one has to say that there is a substantial degree of hindsight in that judgment. Looking at the matter in advance, as prosecutors have to, there was clearly a serious question to be discussed, and properly brought before the Magistrates. In my judgment, had the Magistrates considered that aspect of the case, and considered the prosecutor's position before the case was brought, they could not have concluded that the prosecution had been an improper one in terms of the guidance given by Nolan LJ in DPP v Denning."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Corporation (No 2) Gazette, 23 February 1994; Times, 20 January 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 985
20 Jan 1994
CA

Litigation Practice, Costs
A successful appeal on a costs award should be backdated to the original order.
1 Citers



 
 KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock v The HLT Group; QBD 18-Mar-1994 - Independent, 18 March 1994; [1995] 2 All ER 180
 
Regina v Hughes Ind Summary, 04 April 1994
4 Apr 1994
CACD

Costs
It was wrong to order the Defendant to pay Crown Court costs when the plea upon which he was finally sentenced had been rejected by the Magistrates.

 
Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Tr M Broudie and Co (A Firm) Times, 11 April 1994
11 Apr 1994
QBD

Costs
A taxing officer's discretion as to 'exceptional' to remain unfettered.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Association of Darlington Tax Owners and Another (No 2) Times, 14 April 1994
14 Apr 1994
QBD

Costs, Company
An unincorporated association although not a legal person with the capacity to sue in judicial review, may still suffer an order for costs.
1 Cites


 
Regina v Southend Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Rochford Council Times, 10 May 1994
10 May 1994
QBD

Magistrates, Costs
Magistrates have full and sufficient power to deal with large costs awards, and may not send them on for taxation by other authorities.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64

 
Perry and Another v the Lord Chancellor Times, 26 May 1994
26 May 1994
CCC

Costs
Counsel may not claim for research into law save in unusual cases.


 
 Zuliani and Others v Veira; PC 1-Jul-1994 - Times, 01 July 1994; Gazette, 03 August 1994

 
 Sutton London Borough Council v Davis (Number 2); FD 8-Jul-1994 - Independent, 08 July 1994; Gazette, 31 August 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1317
 
Supreme Court Taxing Office - Practice Direction No 3 of 1994 Gazette, 20 July 1994
20 Jul 1994
SCCO

Costs
Detailed directions were given on the taxation of legal aid and inter partes bills.

 
McDonald and Others v Horn and Others Ind Summary, 08 August 1994; Times, 10 August 1994; [1995] 1 All ER 961; (1994) 144 NLJ 1515; [1995] ICR 685; [1995] 1 CR 685
8 Aug 1994
CA
Hoffmann LJ
Litigation Practice, Costs
A court may make a pre-emptive award of costs to pension fund members who wished to sue the trustees. Hoffmann LJ said: "if one looks at the economic relationships involved, there does seem to me to be a compelling analogy between a minority shareholder's action for damages on behalf of the company and an action by a member of a pension fund to compel trustees or others to account to a fund. In both cases a person with a limited interest in a fund, whether a company's assets or a pension fund, is alleging injury to the fund as a whole and seeking restitution on behalf of the fund. And what distinguishes the shareholder and pension fund member, on the one hand, from the ordinary trust beneficiary, on the other, is that the former have both given consideration for their interests. They are not just recipients of the settlor's bounty which he, for better or worse, has entrusted to the control of trustees of his choice. The relationship between the parties is a commercial one and the pension fund members are entitled to be satisfied that the fund is being properly administered. Even in a non-contributory scheme, the employer's payments are not bounty. They are part of the consideration for the services of the employee. Pension funds are such a special form of trust and the analogy between them and companies with shareholders is so much stronger than in the case of ordinary trusts that, in my judgment, that it would do no violence to established authority if we were to apply to them the Wallersteiner v. Moir (No. 2) procedure."
As to the court's powers to award costs: "The court's jurisdiction to deal with litigation costs is based upon section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which, is derived from section 5 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1890.
The background to the Act of 1890 is briefly as follows. In the old courts of common law, costs followed the event. The judge had no discretion. In the Court of Chancery, costs were in the discretion of the court but that discretion was exercised according to certain principles which I shall discuss later. The first Rules of the new Supreme Court of Judicature (enacted in 1875) adopted the Chancery practice.
The discretion conferred by section 51 is by no means untrammelled. It must be exercised in accordance with the rules of court and established principles." and "In the case of a fund held on trust, therefore, ["therefore" is explained by his immediately previous citation of sub rule 2 of order 62, rule 6 of the then Rules of the Supreme Court] the trustee is entitled to his costs out of the fund on an indemnity basis, provided only that he has not acted unreasonably or in substance for his own benefit rather than that of the fund. Trustees are also able to protect themselves against the possibility that they may be held to have acted unreasonably or in their own interest by applying at an early stage for directions as to whether to bring or defend the proceedings. This procedure, sanctioned by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam requires the trustee to make full disclosure of the strengths and weaknesses of his case. Provided that such disclosure has been made, the trustee can have full assurance that he will not personally have to bear his own costs or pay those of anyone else."
Supreme Court Act 1981 51 - Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1890 5
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Coroner for Kent Ex Parte Johnstone; QBD 12-Sep-1994 - Ind Summary, 12 September 1994; Times, 19 October 1994; [1995] 6 Med LR 116
 
Regina v Newcastle Under Lyme Magistrates Court Ex Parte Massey and Others Independent, 07 October 1994; Times, 13 October 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1684
7 Oct 1994
QBD

Magistrates, Judicial Review, Costs
Guidance was given on orders for payment of costs by justices who found themselves respondents to judicial review proceedings. Justices who refused consent to quash a committal and failing to appear may be subject to such orders.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Practice Direction No 4 /1994 Chief Taxing Master June 1994 Gazette, 19 October 1994
19 Oct 1994
LCJ

Costs
Revised scales of interlocutory fees for counsel in personal injury cases.


 
 Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; CA 24-Oct-1994 - Ind Summary, 24 October 1994; [1994] 64 PandCR 120

 
 Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Valerian Raz and Portcullis (Vat Consultancy) Ltd; QBD 5-Dec-1994 - Times, 05 December 1994
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.