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: 1997 To: 1997

This page lists 81 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Shelter [1997] COD 49
1997

Carnwath J
Costs, Judicial Review
The court refused to make a costs order against Shelter on the grounds that: (i) there were already pending before the court a sequence of individual cases raising precisely the same issue; (ii) the legal question raised was of genuine public interest; (iii) the applicant's involvement had assisted the court in determining the issue speedily; and (iv) had the matter been determined in separate proceedings, it was likely that any applicant would have been legally aided, and thus the burden of his/her costs would have fallen upon the tax payer and the respondent would not have obtained an order for his costs.
1 Citers


 
Wong v Vizards [1997] 2 Costs LR 46
1997

Toulson J
Costs
The solicitors had sent to the client a written fee proposal for a forthcoming case which they said was drafted on "the worst case basis", saying "I provided you with a fee proposal which hopefully sets out the fullest extent of your liability to this firm for costs likely to be incurred in the future". The client said that the solicitor should be bound by this estimate, and he appealed against a detailed assessment of costs. Held. The court applied an additional margin over and above the solicitors costs after finding the estimate of costs given by them because such estimates are inherently unreliable. The margin amounted to approximately 15%. In determining what is a reasonable amount for a client to pay for the work done, regard should be had to the level of costs which he had been led to believe represented a worst case assessment of his potential liability.
Toulson J said: "It could logically be argued, that since [the solicitor's] proposal included £660 per day for attendance at the trial, the figure of £9995 should be reduced by £1320 on the ground that the trial took two days less than the time allowed for in the fee proposal. On the other hand, I am also mindful that while the sum claimed by the solicitor ought not to vary "substantially" (as the Law Society's Guide says) from that previously estimated without a prior warning to the client, more especially if that estimate was expressed to be on a worst case basis, [the solicitor's] fee proposal was a projection or estimate rather than a warranty. In not reducing the figure of £9955 by £1320, I have effectively allowed to the solicitor a margin of approximately 15% over the worst case estimate given. I consider that a greater divergence would be substantial and unreasonable".
1 Citers


 
Wong v Vizards [1997] 2 Costs LR 46
1997

Toulson J
Costs, Legal Professions
The costs charged by the solicitors greatly exceeded the estimate the solicitor had given. Costs were assessed at the amount shown in the original estimate plus 15%. Held: The court referred to rules 3, 4 and 6 in the Solicitors' Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999 and to a number of authorities. A client knows that he will be charged by his solicitor and thus a solicitor who fails to give an estimate should not thereby be disentitled from receiving any fees. The court held the solicitors to the estimated sum plus 15%, but also allowed the solicitor to recover the costs of communications with the client on the basis that these were not covered by the estimate and so (by implication) the Judge reasoned that the client must have expected to pay separately for these communications: "It is open to Mr Wong to argue that in determining what is a reasonable amount for him to pay for the work done, regard should be had to the level of costs which he had been led to believe represented a worst case assessment of his potential liability."
1 Citers


 
Neill v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 08 January 1997
8 Jan 1997
QBD

Costs
A solicitor properly required an old style committal to test the readiness to attend of a prosecution witness.

 
Regina v R (Children Cases: Costs) Gazette, 12 February 1997; Times, 09 January 1997
9 Jan 1997
CA

Costs
The normal rule against making a costs award in children cases could be over-ridden where the Petitioner has been unreasonable.

 
Peach Publishing Limited v Slater and Co (a Firm) [1997] EWCA Civ 770
14 Jan 1997
CA

Company, Costs
Application for security for costs.
Companies Act 1985 726(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Peach Publishing Limited v Slater and Co (a Firm) [1997] EWCA Civ 769
14 Jan 1997
CA
Lord Justice Nourse Mr. Justice Cazalet
Professional Negligence, Costs
The respondent sought security for costs against an appeal by the plaintiff company. Held: Substantial sums had been paid into court, and which could be treated as money belonging to the plaintiff. Accordingly there was no need for any security for costs.
[ Bailii ]
 
Jeyaletchumy Pelling v Michael John Pelling [1997] EWCA Civ 776
15 Jan 1997
CA
Lord Justice Mummery
Costs, Family
The appellant wished to appeal orders for costs made against him in family proceedings. The respondent had filed her bill of costs out of time, with no explanation of the delay. He contended that there was no foundation for the court to exercise its discretion to allow the bill. In the second case he said the judge had been wrong to say that no extension of time was required. Held: What he described was desirable good practice, but did not prevent a taxation of the costs.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Watson, Rudolph, Hosp v Perotti, Abbate; CA 17-Jan-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 804

 
 Sears Tooth (A Firm) v Payne Hicks Beach (A Firm) and Others; FD 24-Jan-1997 - Gazette, 05 February 1997; Times, 24 January 1997; [1997] 2 FLR 116
 
Electricity Supply Nominees Ltd v Terence Farrell Nicholas T Grimshaw Nicholas Grimshaw and Partners Brian P Taggart Times, 10 March 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 910
3 Feb 1997
CA

Costs
A court making a consent order retains the right to consider any costs issues arising.
[ Bailii ]
 
Garrett v London Borough of Camden [1997] EWCA Civ 941
5 Feb 1997
CA

Employment, Personal Injury, Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Wraith v Wraith and Another; CA 5-Feb-1997 - Gazette, 05 March 1997; Times, 14 February 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 929

 
 Emerton (T/a Bean Bower and Co) v Lewes Bros (Crewe) Ltd; CA 6-Feb-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 949
 
Itzhak Tuvyahu v Joel Swigi [1997] EWCA Civ 965
7 Feb 1997
CA

Costs, Jurisdiction

[ Bailii ]
 
Itzhak Tuvyahu v Joel Swigi [1997] EWCA Civ 964
7 Feb 1997
CA

Jurisdiction, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Harry Pyfrom Oldham v James Sharples [1997] EWCA Civ 960
7 Feb 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Kingston Upon Hull City Council ex parte Hayes [1997] EWHC Admin 133
12 Feb 1997
Admn

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Lagochase Ltd v Westminster City Council [1997] EWHC Admin 145
14 Feb 1997
Admn

Nuisance, Magistrates, Costs

Environmental Protection Act 1990 80
[ Bailii ]

 
 Sawrij, Swalesmoor Mink Farm Limited v Lynx (Helping Abused Animals) Limited, Glover Ormrod; CA 21-Feb-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 1070

 
 Zaiwalla and Another v Elstub and others; CA 21-Feb-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 1075
 
Barclays Bank Plc v Kent County Council [1997] EWCA Civ 1092
26 Feb 1997
CA

Costs, Planning

[ Bailii ]

 
 Malhotra v Dhawan; CA 26-Feb-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 1096; [1997] 8 Med LR 319
 
Hussain v Camden and Islington Health Authority [1997] EWCA Civ 1150
4 Mar 1997
CA

Professional Negligence, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Luxembourg C-46/95 C-46/95; [1997] EUECJ C-46/95
11 Mar 1997
ECJ

Costs
(Order) Procedure - Costs - Discontinuance justified by the conduct of the other party
[ Bailii ]
 
Joseph Aaron v Joy Okoye [1997] EWCA Civ 1274
19 Mar 1997
CA
Lord Justice Hirst
Costs, Legal Professions

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Lambeth London Borough Council, ex Parte Wilson Gazette, 09 April 1997; Times, 25 March 1997
25 Mar 1997
CA

Costs, Local Government
An order making a council official personally liable for the costs of an action would usually be inappropriate, but not always.

 
Wallace and Another v Brian Gale and Associates (A Firm) Times, 31 March 1997
31 Mar 1997
CA

Costs
Costs in action after Tomlin Order included the costs of implementing the order.
1 Citers


 
Ross v Owners of the Bowbelle and Another Times, 08 April 1997
8 Apr 1997
CA

Costs
Interests on costs of taxation of costs run from date of judgement for costs.

 
Paul Foskett v Lloyds Bank Plc [1997] EWCA Civ 1392
14 Apr 1997
CA

Costs, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlef Von Appen Gmbh v Wiener Allianz Versichrungs Ag and Voest Alpine Intertrading Gmbh [1997] EWCA Civ 1420
16 Apr 1997
CA

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ronald Ling, Harold Carlton v Coopers and Lybrand, Charity Commissioners, HM Attorney-General CA Civ 1504
24 Apr 1997
CA

Costs, Litigation Practice
The applicant, Mr Lomas, had appeared as a Mackenzie friend for the two applicants, in the latest of a long running series of actions challenging the management of a charitable foundation. The court warned Mr Lomas, that whilst they were prepared to hear him, he might run the risk of an order for costs against him personally if the application was felt to be frivolous. He applied for leave and appealed just that order when it was later made. The court granted leave. Whilst the court might not feel particular sympathy for the appellant, he had raised an issue which required clarification as to the power of the court to order costs against someone acting as a Mackenzie friend.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Mahmed Ali; Admn 28-Apr-1997 - HC Admin 417
 
Shaw and Goodger v Watts [1997] EWCA Civ 1563
30 Apr 1997
CA

Land, Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
D A V Hicks v Allan and Bath (a Firm) K P Hearsum and R I Hearsum [1997] EWCA Civ 1641
8 May 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
James Dixon v Lancelot Guy Allgood [1997] EWCA Civ 1645
8 May 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
J H Shannon v Country Casuals Holdings Plc Times, 16 June 1997; Gazette, 21 May 1997
21 May 1997
QBD

Litigation Practice, Costs
A witness who was answering a sub poena ad duces tecum, is entitled to his costs incurred in complying with the order over and above just the conduct money. Such an order can lead to real additional costs.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Baylis v Kelly and Others Times, 06 June 1997
6 Jun 1997
QBD

Costs
When apportioning his costs between defendants, a solicitor is to attribute particular costs first to each client, and then apportion the rest on a pro rata assessment between the clients.

 
Regina v Barnet Justices ex parte Ribbans [1997] EWHC Admin 566
18 Jun 1997
Admn
Mr Justice Laws
Local Government, Taxes - Other, Magistrates, Costs
The applicant was an elderly illiterate lady. The magistrates had found that she had culpably neglected to pay her community charge. A suspended sentence of imprisonment was first imposed, and then effected in her absence. Held the Magistrates were under an obligation to enquire as to the adequacy of the service by recorded delivery. Costs were ordered against the magistrates despite their having only filed affidavit evidence.
1 Cites


 
Iberotraval Limited v Pallas Leasing (Number 32) Limited (Formerly Copymore (Oa) Rentals Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 1902
19 Jun 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Harvey Michaels and Valentina Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 1920; [1997] 1 WLR 967
20 Jun 1997
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Costs
The respondent sought security for costs. One plaintiff was bankrupt, and an outstanding costs order had not been met. Held: The matter should not be adjourned pending an application for legal aid, and nor should the considerable interest in the case put the respondent at risk. Security for costs ordered.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Liverpool City Council ex parte Jeanette Rodriguez [1997] EWHC Admin 584
23 Jun 1997
Admn

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
General of Berne Insurance Company v Jardine Reinsurance Management Ltd and Others [1997] 2 Costs LR 66
24 Jun 1997
ComC
Tuckey J
Costs
Costs - Contentious Business Agreement- Section Does not limit the costs recoverable by a successful party to the hourly rates agreed in a Contentious Business Agreement - the limit only applies to the global limit payable under the agreement.
Solicitors Act 1974 60(4)
1 Citers


 
Harmer v Mackenzie Glass (Exeter) Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 1990
27 Jun 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Wells v Woodward [1997] EWCA Civ 2003
2 Jul 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Hutson Poole Williamson (a Firm) v Irene Crosthwaite [1997] EWCA Civ 2008
2 Jul 1997
CA

Legal Professions, Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Abada v Gray and Another; CA 9-Jul-1997 - Times, 09 July 1997
 
David Gladstone Livingstone, Gloria Livingstone v Frasso [1997] EWCA Civ 2055
9 Jul 1997
CA

Legal Professions, Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mirror Group Newspapers Plc v Maxwell and Others (No 2) Times, 15 July 1997; [1998] 1 BCLC 638
15 Jul 1997
ChD
Ferris J
Insolvency, Costs
The Court reminded insolvency practitioners of fiduciary duties to creditors when refusing application for further payment on account of costs. Ferris J considered the principles applicable to fixing the remuneration of receivers of the estate of Robert Maxwell appointed by the court under section 37 of the 1981 Act. Their total recoveries before their remuneration and legal fees amounted to £1,672,500. The total of their remuneration (£744,289), legal fees (£705,283) and other disbursements was £1,628,572, most of which was calculated on a time basis. Held: The figures were in his judgment "profoundly shocking" and he described the result of the receivership as "shameful".
Ferris J regarded the 1986 Rules and other regulations as "somewhat sketchy, ill-expressed and consequently liable to be misunderstood" but "if the matter is approached from the standpoint of general principle . . a much firmer picture emerges" and "The essential point which requires constantly to be borne in mind is that office-holders are fiduciaries charged with the duty of protecting, getting in, realising and ultimately passing on to others assets and property which belong not to themselves but to creditors or beneficiaries of one kind or another. They are appointed because of their professional skills and experience and they are expected to exercise proper commercial judgment in the carrying out of their duties. Their fundamental obligation is, however, a duty to account, both for the way in which they exercise their powers and for the property which they deal with."
With a fiduciary duty to account it was for the office-holder who seeks remuneration at a particular level to justify his claim. Ferris J identified three consequences as following from this general equitable principle: "First, office-holders must expect to give full particulars in order to justify the amount of any claim for remuneration. If they seek to be remunerated upon, or partly upon, the basis of time spent in the performance of their duties they must do significantly more than list the total number of hours spent by them or other fee-earning members of their staff and multiply this total by a sum claimed to be the charging rate of the individual whose time was spent. They must explain the nature of each main task undertaken, the considerations which led them to embark upon that task and, if the task proved more difficult or expensive to perform than at first expected, to persevere in it. The time spent needs to be linked to this explanation, so that it can be seen what time was devoted to each task. The amount of detail which needs to be provided will, however, be proportionate to the case.
The charging rate claimed must also be proved by evidence; and what is relevant is not the charging rate of the particular individual but the broad average or general rate charged by persons of the relevant status and qualifications who carry out this kind of work (cf in relation to solicitors' charges Jones v Secretary of State for Wales [1997] 2 All ER 507, [1997] 1 WLR 1008 and the cases there referred to).
Second, office-holders must keep proper records of what they have done and why they have done it. Without contemporaneous records of this kind they will be in difficulty in discharging their duty to account. While a retrospective reconstruction of what has happened may have to be looked at if there is no better source of information, it is unlikely to be as reliable as a contemporaneous record. Office-holders whose records are inadequate are liable to find that doubts are resolved against them because they are unable to fulfil their duty to account for what they have received and to justify their claim to retain part of it for themselves by way of remuneration.
Third, the test of whether office-holders have acted properly in undertaking particular tasks at a particular cost in expenses or time spent must be whether a reasonably prudent man, faced with the same circumstances in relation to his own affairs, would lay out or hazard his own money in doing what the office-holders have done. It is not sufficient, in my view, for office-holders to say that what they have done is within the scope of the duties or powers conferred upon them. They are expected to deploy commercial judgment, not to act regardless of expense. This is not to say that a transaction carried out at a high cost in relation to the benefit received, or even an expensive failure, will automatically result in the disallowance of expenses or remuneration. But it is to be expected that transactions having these characteristics will be subject to close scrutiny." Though the aim is to reward the value of the services rendered by the office-holder, this need not equate to time spent, as to which Ferris J said: "In my judgment it is vital to recognise three things in this field. First, time spent represents a measure not of the value of the service rendered but of the cost of rendering it. Remuneration should be fixed so as to reward value, not so as to indemnify against cost. Second, time spent is only one of a number of relevant factors, the others being, as I have said, those which find expression in r 2.47 and similar rules. The giving of proper weight to these factors is an essential part of the process of assessing the value, as distinct from the cost, of what has been done. Third, it follows from the first two points that, as the task is to assess value rather than cost, the tribunal which fixes remuneration needs to be supplied with full information on all the factors which I have mentioned."
As regards controls, he regarded the Rules and other regulations as "somewhat sketchy, ill-expressed and consequently liable to be misunderstood" but he took the view that "if the matter is approached from the standpoint of general principle . . a much firmer picture emerges". He continued: "The essential point which requires constantly to be borne in mind is that office-holders are fiduciaries charged with the duty of protecting, getting in, realising and ultimately passing on to others assets and property which belong not to themselves but to creditors or beneficiaries of one kind or another. They are appointed because of their professional skills and experience and they are expected to exercise proper commercial judgment in the carrying out of their duties. Their fundamental obligation is, however, a duty to account, both for the way in which they exercise their powers and for the property which they deal with."
It is a feature of the fiduciary duty to account that it is for the office-holder who seeks remuneration at a particular level to justify his claim. Ferris J identified three consequences as following from this general equitable principle: "First, office-holders must expect to give full particulars in order to justify the amount of any claim for remuneration. If they seek to be remunerated upon, or partly upon, the basis of time spent in the performance of their duties they must do significantly more than list the total number of hours spent by them or other fee-earning members of their staff and multiply this total by a sum claimed to be the charging rate of the individual whose time was spent. They must explain the nature of each main task undertaken, the considerations which led them to embark upon that task and, if the task proved more difficult or expensive to perform than at first expected, to persevere in it. The time spent needs to be linked to this explanation, so that it can be seen what time was devoted to each task. The amount of detail which needs to be provided will, however, be proportionate to the case.
The charging rate claimed must also be proved by evidence; and what is relevant is not the charging rate of the particular individual but the broad average or general rate charged by persons of the relevant status and qualifications who carry out this kind of work (cf in relation to solicitors' charges Jones v Secretary of State for Wales [1997] 2 All ER 507, [1997] 1 WLR 1008 and the cases there referred to).
Second, office-holders must keep proper records of what they have done and why they have done it. Without contemporaneous records of this kind they will be in difficulty in discharging their duty to account. While a retrospective reconstruction of what has happened may have to be looked at if there is no better source of information, it is unlikely to be as reliable as a contemporaneous record. Office-holders whose records are inadequate are liable to find that doubts are resolved against them because they are unable to fulfil their duty to account for what they have received and to justify their claim to retain part of it for themselves by way of remuneration.
Third, the test of whether office-holders have acted properly in undertaking particular tasks at a particular cost in expenses or time spent must be whether a reasonably prudent man, faced with the same circumstances in relation to his own affairs, would lay out or hazard his own money in doing what the office-holders have done. It is not sufficient, in my view, for office-holders to say that what they have done is within the scope of the duties or powers conferred upon them. They are expected to deploy commercial judgment, not to act regardless of expense. This is not to say that a transaction carried out at a high cost in relation to the benefit received, or even an expensive failure, will automatically result in the disallowance of expenses or remuneration. But it is to be expected that transactions having these characteristics will be subject to close scrutiny. "
Supreme Court Act 1981 37 - Insolvency Rules 1986
1 Citers


 
Hi-Tek Bags Limited v Sun 99 Limited and Another [1997] EWCA Civ 2141
18 Jul 1997
CA
Lord Justice Leggatt, Lord Justice Morritt, Lord Justice Brooke
Company, Costs
The defendant appealed an order requiring it to give security for costs under s726. Held: There were clear reasons for doubting the amounts sought by the plaintiffs, but some sum was properly required, and a lower sum was substituted.
Companies Act 1985 726
[ Bailii ]
 
New Zealand Forest Products Limited v the New Zealand Insurance Company Limited [1997] UKPC 37; [1997] 1 WLR 1237
21 Jul 1997
PC
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Justice Henry
Commonwealth, Insurance, Damages, Costs
(New Zealand) Proceedings had been instituted in five causes of action against a company and its director, whose costs were both covered by an insurance policy, and in the case of one of the causes of action against a third person not so covered. All the defendants were represented by the same lawyers. It was common ground that costs not relating in any way to the insured director's defence would not be covered, while costs exclusively related to the insured director's defence would be covered. The issue which arose was as to defence costs which related at one and the same time to the defence both of the claim against the insured director and of the claim against the uninsured third person. The courts below took the view that there should be an apportionment. Held: The relevant insurance. This covered "all loss . . which such officer has become legally obligated to pay on account of any claim made against him . . for a wrongful act". Since this wording would cover the whole costs incurred in the defence where the insured officer was the sole defendant, the Board saw no reason why it should not cover them all, where some of them related also to the defence of an uninsured co-defendant.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Neville and Another v Wilson and Others (No 2) Times, 28 July 1997; Gazette, 10 September 1997
28 Jul 1997
CA

Costs
A costs agreement made between the parties' solicitors and for consideration, was not capable of being set aside by a court despite any injustice it created.


 
 Truscott v Truscott; Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters Ltd; CA 31-Jul-1997 - Times, 15 October 1997; [1998] 1 WLR 132; [1997] EWCA Civ 2285; [1998] 1 All ER 82; [1997] 2 Costs LR 74

 
 John Seifert v Pensions Ombudsman and others; CA 31-Jul-1997 - Times, 03 October 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2268; [1997] 4 All ER 947

 
 Regina v HM Coroner for Birmingham and Solihull ex parte Benton; Admn 31-Jul-1997 - [1997] EWHC Admin 744
 
Zipporah Mainwaring, Robert Lisle v Goldtech Investments Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 2296
12 Aug 1997
CA

Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Times, 20 August 1997
20 Aug 1997
ChD

Costs, Scotland
A court may make no order for costs where defendant although successful had caused excessive costs by pursuing unsuccessful points.

 
Pendennis Shipyard Ltd and Others v Magrathea (Pendennis) Ltd (In Liquidation) Times, 27 August 1997; Gazette, 17 September 1997
27 Aug 1997
QBD

Costs, Insurance
Insurers conducting defence for own purposes though not parties were liable to pay costs of successful plaintiff.

 
Awad Awwad v Geraghty and Company [1997] EWCA Civ 2334; [2001] QB 570
8 Sep 1997
CA
Nourse, Evans LJJ
Legal Professions, Costs
The court considered an application for leave to appeal as to whether a litigation agreement was champertous and void.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Maddox v Thurrock Borough Council; Admn 19-Sep-1997 - HC Admin 815

 
 Abraham and Another v Thompson and Others; CA 1-Oct-1997 - Gazette, 01 October 1997
 
Chohan v Marks and Spencer Plc and others [1997] EWCA Civ 2439
8 Oct 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Peter Naylor v Inland Revenue [1997] EWCA Civ 2471
13 Oct 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Trustee of Property of Christopher Vickery (a Bankrupt) v Modern Security Systems Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 2493; [1998] 1 BCLC 428; [1998] BPIR 164
15 Oct 1997
CA
Peter Gibson LJ, Ward LJ, Vinelott LJ
Insolvency, Costs
A trustee in bankruptcy will be treated as the party if he has in fact adopted the proceedings by conducting the litigation, even if there has been no formal substitution
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Alan Michael Sugar v Terence Frederick Venables and Michael Joseph Limited (2) [1997] EWCA Civ 2509
17 Oct 1997
CA
Simon Brown LJ
Costs
The appellant challenged an order for costs against him. He had begun defamation proceedings which were settled upon the terms of an offer without prejudice as to costs. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's substantial costs incurred during a six-month period, after a large payment into court had been made and before it was accepted whilst a suitable form of undertaking was being considered. It was the basic contention of the unsuccessful plaintiff there that "in all circumstances it is incumbent upon the defendant seeking protection as to costs to make an unambiguous and unequivocal offer in terms capable of instant acceptance." Held: (Simon Brown LJ) "I would reject that contention. It involves, to my mind, an altogether too mechanistic approach to the issue of costs and is in any event irreconcilable with this court's judgment in Roache. If the argument were sound the plaintiff would be free to ignore an express offer to negotiate an appropriate undertaking and be entitled to litigate on at the defendant's expense until the undertaking came to be in a form which he was prepared to accept. Roache itself, in my judgment, demonstrates this to be wrong. There no offer whatever of an undertaking was made, indeed the application for an injunction was resisted, and yet an injunction having in fact then been granted, the defendants were nevertheless adjudged to have been the substantial winners. The real reason, as this court found, why the plaintiff there had fought on was to try to obtain greater damages than were on offer. In that he failed. That, French J found, was the substantial reason why this plaintiff too was prolonging these proceedings after the payment in."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Cambridge County Council ex parte Leach and Leach [1997] EWHC Admin 916
23 Oct 1997
Admn
Forbes J
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Mayfair Brassware Ltd; A R W Enterprises Ltd v Aqualine International Ltd; Abilio Jose De Oliveira and Filhos, Lda (a Corporation Incorporated In Accordance With the Laws of the Republic of Portugal) and Skipton Builders Merchants Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 2560
23 Oct 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Electrotec Services Limited v Issa Nicholas (Grenada) Limited [1997] UKPC 50; [1998] 1 WLR 202
27 Oct 1997
PC
Lord Hoffmann
Commonwealth, Costs, Constitutional
(Grenada) The Court of Appeal of Grenada in granting leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee had imposed a condition requiring security of £500. The respondent then applied to the Judicial Committee for an order under its inherent jurisdiction that the appellant pay into court the sum of £130,000 as security for costs, Held: the Committee refused to make such an order. Rule 2 of the 1982 Rules which provides that an appeal shall be either with the leave of the court appealed from or with special leave granted by Her Majesty in Council. "It follows that notwithstanding that the case may be one in which an appeal lies as of right, the leave of the Court of Appeal must be obtained. Such leave is not, however, a matter of discretion for that court." and "It would therefore appear that the function of the Court of Appeal upon an application for leave is to satisfy itself that the case is one in which, under the Constitution of Grenada, a right of appeal exists and, if so satisfied, to consider the exercise of the power to impose conditions conferred by article 5. Leave is granted "in the first instance" subject to compliance with those conditions and final leave is granted when the conditions have been complied with."
West Indies Associated States (Appeals to Privy Council) (Grenada) Order 1967 (SI 1967/224) 5 - Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982 (SI 1982/1676) 2
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Vandersteen (Executor of the Estate of Mcguinness, Dec'd) v Agius and Another Gazette, 29 October 1997; Times, 14 November 1997
29 Oct 1997
CA

Costs, Litigation Practice
An appeal from a district judge on a taxation was by way of re-hearing; A County Court Judge was not restricted to following the discretion as exercised on the first hearing.
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 62 r 28(5) - County Court Rules 1981 Order 13 1(10)

 
A K Hussain (Force Solicitor of West Yorkshire Police) v Hardip Singh [1997] EWHC Admin 963
3 Nov 1997
Admn

Magistrates, Police, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v London Borough of Wandsworth ex parte Khadijeh Heshmati [1997] EWCA Civ 2637
4 Nov 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Royal School Hampstead v S O Tiamiyu and R Tiamiyu [1997] EWCA Civ 2638
4 Nov 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Burrows v Vauxhall Motors Ltd; Mongiardi v IBBC Vehicles Ltd; CA 19-Nov-1997 - Gazette, 10 December 1997; Times, 17 December 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2756
 
Elliott and Another v Pensions Ombudsman and Others Gazette, 26 November 1997; Times, 20 November 1997; [1998] OPLR 21
20 Nov 1997
ChD

Costs
Costs of appeal against Ombudsman's determination to be assessed according to extent of participation.
1 Citers


 
Gudmundur Kristjansson (the Trustee In Bankruptcy of Hodor Gudmunsson Albertsson) v R Verney and Company Limited (Trading As Fuerst Day Lawson Fish) and Nigel Francis [1997] EWCA Civ 2788
21 Nov 1997
CA

Costs
Application for leave to appeal against order refusing variation of order for security for costs.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Barclays Bank Plc v Kent County Council [1997] EWCA Civ 2804
24 Nov 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Dudley Magistrates Court ex parte Hollis; Robert v Same Times, 12 December 1997; [1997] EWHC Admin 1043; [1999] 1 WLR 642
25 Nov 1997
Admn
Moses J
Costs, Magistrates
An award of costs is inevitable after a finding of statutory nuisance and such costs include cost of establishing the nuisance. "The wide discretion as to whether to grant an adjournment conferred by section 10 and section 54 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 cannot, usually, be impugned. But it is a power which must not be exercised in a manner which undermines the statute under which the proceedings are brought or in a way which deprives a litigant of rights conferred by that statute. An adjournment cannot be granted if the only purpose is to avoid the consequences which the law provides will follow, should the hearing continue."
Environmental Protection Act 1990 - Magistrates Courts Act 1980 54
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Zipporah Mainwaring v Encyclopaedia Britannica International Limited and Encyclopaedia Britannica Incorporated [1997] EWCA Civ 2998
15 Dec 1997
CA

Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ager v Ager Times, 06 January 1998; [1997] EWCA Civ 3053
19 Dec 1997
CA

Costs
An order of the Court of Appeal that an order for costs was not to be enforced without the leave of the court could be dealt with by leave of the first instance court. It did not have to go back to the Court of Appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Francis v South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 3059
19 Dec 1997
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re Sasea Finance Ltd (In Liquidation); ChD 29-Dec-1997 - Times, 29 December 1997
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.