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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 159 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Brawley v Marizynski (No 1) [2002] EWCA Civ 756
2002
CA

Costs
There is no convention that an order for no costs should be made whenever the court is asked to decide costs on the settlement of the matter where it was difficult to discern who had one in any conventional sense.
1 Citers


 
Devine v Franklin [2002] EWHC 1846 (QB)
2002
QBD
Gray J
Costs

1 Citers



 
 Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor; CA 2002 - [2002] 1 WLR 2800; [2001] EWCA Civ 1723; [2002] EMLR 19; [2002] 1 Costs LR 180; [2002] 2 All ER 150; [2002] CP Rep 12; [2002] CPLR 1
 
Regina (Hale) v Southport Justices Times, 29 January 2002
14 Jan 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage
Costs, Magistrates, Criminal Practice
The applicant had been awarded the costs of his defence by the magistrates, but the bill was halved on assessment, on the basis that an agreement to engage a solicitor of more than four years admission to defend a charge of assault and battery, and to pay him on an hourly rate was unreasonable. He appealed. Held: The clerk had misread the test in the section. It was not whether a less experienced solicitor would have been reasonably sufficient. The test was directed not to the choice of solicitor, but to the remuneration claimed. It was reasonable to agree to pay a solicitor on a flat hourly rate when charging practices at that time were in a transition period, and fees for advice prior to the actual charge were also within the section.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(6)

 
Hale, Regina (On the Application of) v North Sefton Justices [2002] EWHC 257 (Admin)
14 Jan 2002
Admn
Auld LJ, Gage J
Costs, Legal Aid
The court considered the words "in the proceedings" in Regulation 7 of the 1986 Regulations. One issue was whether claims for attendance on the claimant prior to charge are for expenses incurred by the claimant "in the proceedings". The court decided that claims for attendance prior to charge were encompassed by those words. Instructions were given at a time when charge was imminent and the bail on which the claimant had been placed was about to expire.
Auld LJ said: "It seems to me that on a sensible approach it cannot reasonably be said that the advice sought and given at the initial attendance was not 'in the proceedings' simply because the charge had not yet been preferred."
Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 7
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Eclipse IT Ltd v TC Designs Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 48
16 Jan 2002
CA

Legal Professions, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
SCT Finance Ltd v Bolton [2002] EWCA Civ 56; [2003] 3 All ER 434
16 Jan 2002
CA
Waller, Rix LJJ, Wilson J
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
European Reinsurance Consultants and Run-Off Consultants Ltd v Pearce [2002] EWCA Civ 84
21 Jan 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Vedatech Corporation v Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd and Another (357) [2002] EWCA Civ 357
28 Jan 2002
CA

Costs
Three applications for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Vedatech Corporation v Crystal Decisions (Uk) Ltd and Another (356) [2002] EWCA Civ 356
28 Jan 2002
CA

Costs
Appeal from order requiring payment of security for costs
[ Bailii ]
 
Factortame Ltd and others v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions) [2002] EWCA Civ 22; [2002] 2 All ER 838; [2002] 1 WLR 2438; [2002] CPLR 385
28 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal Civil Division Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Sedley
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
A part 36 offer had been made and declined. A significant amendment was made to the defendant's pleadings on the basis of information which had always been available to him. The claimant then accepted the payment in. Should the claimant be regarded as the successful party for costs purposes. Held: Costs remain at the discretion of the judge, and a judge's decision should not be interfered with without clear justification. Nevertheless, the court may take into account the circumstances which have given rise to a change of mind, and each decision must be assessed within its own factual matrix. In this case no error had been identified in the judge's reasoning, and the appeal failed.
No general rule that claimant is “successful party” if (a) defendant makes Part 36 payment which claimant does not accept, (b) defendant makes significant amendment to case on basis of information always available to him, (c) claimant then accepts payment
Civil Procedure Rules 36
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Joseph, Regina (on the Application Of) v Manches and Co [2002] EWCA Civ 188
29 Jan 2002
CA

Legal Professions, Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Challenger and Another v Watkins and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 281
30 Jan 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Contantine v Christoffer [2002] EWCA Civ 132
4 Feb 2002
CA

Costs, Defamation
Renewed application for permission to appeal by the claimant in these libel proceedings from an order for costs
[ Bailii ]
 
Walbrook Properties Ltd v Severn Trent Water Ltd and others [2002] EWHC 9016 (Costs)
5 Feb 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Aoun v Bahri and Another [2002] EWHC 29 (Commercial); [2002] 3 All ER 182
6 Feb 2002
ComC
Moore-Bick, J
Costs
Application for security for costs against the claimant.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Glencore International Ag v Metro Trading International Inc Credit Lyonnais (France) Sa and others [2002] EWCA Civ 138
6 Feb 2002
CA
Potter, Kay LJJ
International, Costs
Application for leave to appeal against costs order.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Kiam II v MGN Ltd (2); CA 6-Feb-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 66; [2002] 1 WLR 2810; [2002] 2 All ER 242
 
Kiam v MGN Ltd [2002] EWHC 9018 (Costs)
6 Feb 2002
CA

Costs
The defendants appealed against the award by a jury of £105,000 to the claimant for libel. Some time before the appeal was due to be heard the claimant offered to accept £75,000, and to return the additional £30,000, plus appropriate interest, a proposal which the appellants simply ignored.
The Court of Appeal, by a majority, dismissed the appeal on the merits, and affirmed the award of £105,000 damages. The question then arose as to whether, in those circumstances, the claimant was entitled to his costs of the appeal on the indemnity basis, rather than on the standard basis. The Court of Appeal considered Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd, McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Reid Minty (A Firm) v Taylor, and considered that the award of indemnity costs did, notwithstanding some of the dicta in those cases, carry some stigma, and held that it would be a rare case indeed where a refusal of a settlement offer would attract not merely an adverse order for costs, but such an order on the indemnity rather than the standard basis. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal unanimously refused the claimant's application for costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis, though it seems that they may well have been strongly influenced by the fact that the minority Judge would only have awarded £60,000 damages.
[ Bailii ]
 
Dooley v Parker and Parker [2002] EWCA Civ 96
7 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Sedley, And, Lady Justice Arden
Costs
A multi-track case had been settled. The District judge had ordered that there be no costs awarded. The appellant sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal had been rejected by the costs office who said that such an appeal lay only to the circuit judge. Held: Jurisdiction lay with the Court of Appeal. Previous judgements on the point may have been clearer, but that was the case.
Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000 (2000 N0 1071)
[ Bailii ]
 
Wulfsohn, Regina (on the Application of) v Legal Service Commission [2002] EWCA Civ 250; [2002] EWHC 9025 (Costs); [2002] CP Rep 34; [2002] 3 Costs LR 341
8 Feb 2002
CA
Schiemann LJ, Rix LJ
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant appealed against a costs award made to him when acting as a litigant in person. Held: The appeal was allowed. A litigant in person may be able to claim for the costs of his research, subject to the cap in the rules.
Schiemann LJ said: "If one reads together 48.6(2) and (4) one sees that, in principle, a litigant in person is entitled to compensation for his time, and the rate is fixed by Statutory Instrument and at all relevant times was £9.25 per hour. But there is a cap which is that however long a litigant spends in person doing things he cannot recover more than, broadly speaking, two-thirds of what his legal representatives would have done if he had had a lawyer."
Civil Procedure Rules 48.6
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Kahn and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; In re Toshoku Finance plc; HL 20-Feb-2002 - Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 6; Times, 25 February 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 671; [2003] 1 AC 1; [2002] 2 All ER 113; [2002] 2 Cr App R 9; [2002] HRLR 23; (2002) 166 JPN 431; (2002) 166 JP 333

 
 Pine v Law Society; CA 20-Feb-2002 - Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 175

 
 Pine v Law Society; CA 20-Feb-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 371
 
Pine v the Law Society [2002] EWHC 9019 (Costs)
20 Feb 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Lyons v Vauxhall Aftersales [2002] EWCA Civ 301
21 Feb 2002
CA

Costs, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Dunnett v Railtrack Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 302
22 Feb 2002
CA

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dunnett v Railtrack plc; CA 22-Feb-2002 - Times, 03 April 2002; Gazette, 18 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 303; [2002] 1 WLR 2434; [2002] CPLR 309; [2002] 2 All ER 850
 
Dunnett v Railtrack Plc [2002] EWHC 9020 (Costs)
22 Feb 2002
SCCO

Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Tilby v Perfect Pizza Ltd [2002] EWHC 9003 (Costs)
28 Feb 2002
SCCo

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the application of Leppard) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Gazette, 14 March 2002
28 Feb 2002
Admn
Forbes J
Planning, Costs

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 320 (2) - Local Government Act 1972 259(5)

 
Arrow Nominees Inc and others v Blackledge and others [2002] EWCA Civ 378
28 Feb 2002
CA

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Jolly v Jay and Another; CA 7-Mar-2002 - Times, 03 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 277
 
Palmeira Square Nos 2-6 Ltd v Van Hoogstraten [2002] EWCA Civ 417
13 Mar 2002
CA
Gibson LJ,
Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Supreme Court Act 1981 51 - Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5
[ Bailii ]
 
Reed and others v Oury and others [2002] EWHC 369 (Ch)
14 Mar 2002
ChD

Costs, Litigation Practice
The court should only exercise its power under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 3 to require a payment in only in limited circumstances, and not do so unless the party against whom the order was sought had acted in bad faith.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Amec Process and Energy Ltd v Stork Engineers and Contractors Bv (A Company Registered In the Netherlands) (No 3) Unreported, 15 March 2002
15 Mar 2002


Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

1 Citers


 
Mahmood and Another v Penrose and others [2002] EWCA Civ 457
15 Mar 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
In re Claims Direct Test Cases Times, 04 April 2002; Gazette, 03 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 333
19 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Potter and Lady Justice Arden
Costs, Insurance, Personal Injury
The applicants sought to appeal on two matters where they had questions of practice in the conduct of personal injury claims. These were as to whether after-the-event cover purchased under section 29 amounted to insurance premiums, and the setting of how much was a reasonable sum to be recovered in such cases. Held: The Court of Appeal could only answer appeals from judgements. Its jurisdiction is appellate, and it was not appropriate to seek to deal with matters which had not yet been decided at first instance.
Access to Justice Act 1999 29
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Huck v Robson [2002] 3 All ER 263; [2002] EWCA Civ 398; [2002] PIQR 591; [2003] 1 WLR 1340; [2002] CP Rep 38; [2002] CPLR 345; [2002] PIQR P31; [2003] 1 Costs LR 19
21 Mar 2002
CA
Schiemann, Tuckey, Jonathon Parker LJJ
Costs
The claimant succeeded in her action for personal injuries. She appealed against an order for costs in her favour on the standard basis, saying that it should have been on an indemnity basis.
Civil Procedure Rules 36
[ Bailii ]
 
Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note) Times, 05 April 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 365; [2002] 1 WLR 2450; [2002] CPLR 328; [2002] CP Rep 43; [2002] 2 Costs LR 279; [2002] 4 All ER 775
21 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Dyson
Costs
The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate. Held: In such cases the court must undertake a two stage examination. First it should look at the proportionality of the claim, making allowance for the amount which might reasonably be thought could be awarded. If the overall amount was then seen as disproportionate, the court should look at each item claimed, and ask whether the work undertaken was necessary. If so, then the principle of proportionality need not override proper claims for payment. "what is required is a two-stage approach. There has to be a global approach and an item by item approach. The global approach will indicate whether the total sum claimed is or appears to be disproportionate having particular regard to the considerations which Part 44.5(3) states are relevant. If the costs as a whole are not disproportionate according to that test then all that is normally required is that each item should have been reasonably incurred and the cost for that item should be reasonable. If on the other hand the costs as a whole appear disproportionate then the court will want to be satisfied that the work in relation to each item was necessary and, if necessary, that the cost of the item is reasonable. If, because of lack of planning or due to other causes, the global costs are disproportionately high, then the requirement that the costs should be proportionate means that no more should be payable than would have been payable if the litigation had been conducted in a proportionate manner. This is turn means that reasonable costs will only be recovered for the items which were necessary if the litigation had been conducted in a proportionate manner"
The court adopted the following: "In modern litigation, with the emphasis on proportionality, there is a requirement for parties to make an assessment at the outset of the likely value of the claim and its importance and complexity, and then to plan in advance the necessary work, the appropriate level of person to carry out the work, the overall time which would be necessary and appropriate spend on the various stages in bringing the action to trial and the likely overall cost. While it was not unusual for costs to exceed the amount in issue, it was, in the context of modest litigation such as the present case, one reason for seeking to curb the amount of work done, and the cost by reference to the need for proportionality."
Civil Procedure Rules 44.5(3)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Giambrone and others v JMC Holidays [2002] EWHC 9022 (Costs)
22 Mar 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Dr I Kovacs v Queen Mary and Westfield College and Another Times, 12 April 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] Emp LR 940; [2002] ICR 919; [2002] IRLR 414
22 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick and Mr Justice Charles
Employment, Costs
The claimant had had mixed success in claims for race discrimination, but appealed orders to pay to the costs of the respondents. She claimed to be impecunious and that that should have been taken into account before deciding whether a costs order should be made against her. Should a costs sanction be available to restrain the vexatious litigant whether poor or not? Held: The tribunal should look at neither party's means to decide whether a costs order should be made. The restriction on awards of costs unless for misbehaviour remains an appropriate protection of a litigant, and a tribunal does not have the facility to investigate means. The extension of the rules to allow awards for misbehaviour of representatives supported this view. Earlier case law not having dealt with this point at this level the court was free to make its own choice in the matter.
Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 (1993 No 2687) 12
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Booth v Britannia Hotels Ltd [2002] EWHC 9030 (Costs)
26 Mar 2002
SCCO

Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Booth v Britannia Hotels Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 579; [2003] 1 Costs LR 43
26 Mar 2002
CA

Costs
The claimant had made a large personal injury claim (£617,000) but was forced to reduce it to all but nothing when video evidence was provided shortly before trial. She accepted a payment in of £2,500 and other benefits worth just over £20,000. The defendants agreed to pay her costs on the standard basis. On assessment the district judge ordered that the defendants pay all the costs relating to liability and 60% of the costs relating to quantum. She then examined all the separate items, allowed the assessed costs of the liability items and 60% of the assessed costs of the quantum items. The defendants appealed, saying that the deduction was arbitrary and gave insufficient weight to what had happened. Held. The district judge assessing the costs had gone about it the wrong way. She should have assessed the various items first, allowing them or disallowing them as appropriate, and after that she could and should have allowed a percentage award having regard to the damages actually obtained. "She had to ask herself what costs (ie what items of expenditure) were reasonably incurred and what would be a reasonable amount to allow in respect of each of those items in order to establish quantum against the background that, at the end of the day, the son accepted was £2500 and repayment of benefit to the CRU.
In the context of this case that, to my mind, means that the district judge should have started by going through the bill of costs and ruling out all of those items she considered to be unjustified (for example, almost all of the medical fees, cost of retaining leading counsel, etc). That would, no doubt, have left some items which were plainly reasonable as items, even if questionable in amount, and other items where it would be difficult if not impossible to disentangle what was reasonable from what was unreasonable even having regard to the way in which rule 12(1) required that doubts be resolved. At that stage, but not any earlier stage, it would, in my judgment, be appropriate for the discreet judge to consider awarding a percentage of the sum claimed, but the percentage awarded would have to be such that at the end of the exercise the total amount awarded by way of costs could be regarded as reasonable having regard to the amount of damages obtained. In other words, the district judge must give herself an opportunity to look at the result in the round before concluding her arithmetic. In the present case her approach was wrong because in particular it deprived her of that opportunity and resulted in a conclusion that it was reasonable for the claimant to expend about £57,000 in order to recover £2,500 and to require the defendants to pay 60 per cent of the sum expended. That, in my judgment, must be nonsense.
I accept of course that the district judge must work within the ambit of the order made in relation to costs, whether it be a consent order or an order made after a contested hearing."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Inline Logistics Ltd v UCI Logistics Ltd Times, 02 May 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002
27 Mar 2002
CA
Mr Justice Ferris
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought payment as part of its costs of the legal expenses insurance premium it had paid in the period between April 1 and July 2000. The respondent said it had not complied with the rules. This was required by the Act. Held: The Act came into effect on April 1st, but the rules did not apply until July 3rd. Between times, there was no possibility of complying with the rules. The transitional rules only applied to those who had not yet commenced proceedings. Since there were no rules in place to comply with, it could not be said that the claimant had failed to comply with them.
Access to Justice Act 1999 29 - Civil Procedure Rules 44.15 - Civil Procedure (Amendment No 3) Rules 2000 (SI 2000 No 1317)

 
Inline Logistics Ltd v Uci Logistics Ltd [2002] EWHC 9021 (Costs)
27 Mar 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Jones v Twinsectra Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 668
16 Apr 2002
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 - Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Phillips and Another v Messrs Eversheds (A Firm) and others [2002] EWCA Civ 486
18 Apr 2002
CA
Buxton LJ
Costs
Application by interveners for security for costs of appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
In re Good, deceased; Carapeto v Good and Others Times, 22 May 2002; Gazette, 07 June 2002; (2002) WTLR 801; [2002] All ER 141; [2002] EWHC 640
19 Apr 2002
ChD
Justice Rimer
Wills and Probate, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The normal rules as to costs contained in the CPR should also be followed in probate actions save only that the judge should also take account of the guidance in the Spiers case, where an alternative costs order might be made if the testator or those interested in the residue had been the cause of the litigation or if the circumstances led reasonably to an investigation. In this case a challenge to the will failed, but the challenge had not been without merit, and it remained appropriate to make an order that one half of the claimant's costs be payable from the estate.
A testator, when there is no suggestion of insanity, is presumed to have remained sane: "The burden of proving that a testator knew and approved of the contents of his will lies on the party propounding the will. In the ordinary course, the burden will be discharged by proving the due execution of the will and that the testator had testamentary capacity. Where, however, the will was prepared in circumstances exciting suspicion something more may be required from those propounding the will by way of proof of knowledge and approval of its contents. A relevant standard of proof is, however, simply by reference to that balance of probability."
As to proof of execution of the will, Rimer J said: "The burden of proving that a testator knew and approved of the contents of his will lies on the party propounding the will. In the ordinary course, the burden will be discharged by proving the due execution of the will and that the testator had testamentary capacity. Where, however, the will was prepared in circumstances exciting suspicion, something more may be required from those propounding the will by way of proof of knowledge and approval of its contents. The relevant standard of proof is, however, simply by reference to the balance of probability."
On undue influence, Rimer J said: "the burden of proving that the May will was procured by undue influence on the part of the Carapetos lies squarely on the defendants. He disclaimed any suggestion that in circumstances such as those of the present case there is any scope for a presumption that undue influence was brought to bear on Miss Good, such that the burden is on the Carapetos to rebut it.
In this context, undue influence means coercion. The defendants have to show that, one way or another, the Carapetos so manipulated Miss Good that she felt she had no choice but to make the May will. "
Civil Procedure Rules 44.3
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
United Building and Plumbing Contractors v Kaila [2002] EWHC 9026 (Costs)
26 Apr 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Peri v Engel Gazette, 07 June 2002
29 Apr 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Ferris
Insolvency, Costs
A third party agreed to pay the bankrupt's debts. He applied for the bankruptcy to be annulled, and for the trustee's costs to be assessed and fixed at a reasonable level under section 303. The trustee appealed the costs order saying that the bankrupt had not been prejudiced by his actions. Held: The appeal was dismissed since the trustees costs had to be fixed in order to clear the action, and whether or not he had acted to prejudice the bankrupt. However the only statutory footing was section 363, and the order was amended accordingly.
Insolvency Act 1986 303 363

 
Peri v Engel [2002] EWHC 799 (Ch); [2002] BPIR 961
29 Apr 2002
ChD
Ferris J
Insolvency, Costs

Insolvency Act 1986 303
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Woods v Chaleff and others [2002] EWHC 9005 (Costs)
30 Apr 2002
SCCo

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) Times, 10 May 2002; Gazette, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 605; [2002] 1 WLR 2409; [2002] 3 All ER 385; [2003] IRLR 710
30 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Latham and Lady Justice Arden
Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Costs
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision. Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the decision in their case had been arrived at. Flannery preceded the Act. Reasons may be implicit from the finding itself, and in such cases more detailed reasons may not be necessary. The need varied from case to case. For costs orders, only in those cases where an order with neither reasons nor any obvious explanation was it likely to be appropriate to give permission to appeal for lack of reasons. if the appellate process is to work satisfactorily, the judgment must enable the appellate court to understand why the judge reached his decision. "Justice will not be done if it is not apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost". This does not mean that every factor which weighed with the judge in his appraisal of the evidence has to be identified and explained. But the issues the resolution of which were vital to the judge's conclusion should be stated and the manner in which he resolved them explained. It does require the judge to identify and record those matters which were critical to his decision.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Clark v Tull (T/A Ardington Electrical Services) [2002] EWCA Civ 510; [2002] 3 WLR 762; [2003] QB 36
1 May 2002
CA

Costs

Consumer Credit Exempt Agreements Order 1989
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mcvicar v The United Kingdom 46311/99; [2002] ECHR 431; (2002) 35 EHRR 22; [2002] ECHR 436
7 May 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Defamation, Costs
It was not inconsistent with article 6 to expect both claimants and defendants in defamation proceedings to act in person.
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Bufton v Hill [2002] EWHC 9024 (Costs)
7 May 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Hurst v Leeming [2002] EWHC 1051 (Ch); [2003] 1 Lloyds Rep 379; [2001] EWHC 1051 (Ch); [2003] EWHC 9026 (Costs); [2002] Lloyd's Rep PN 508; [2003] 2 Costs LR 153; [2002] CP Rep 59
9 May 2002
Chd
Lightman J
Professional Negligence, Costs
The claimant solicitor, had instructed the defendant, a barrister, to represent him in a civil claim. He sought had damages for alleged negligence. He had agreed that the action could not proceed, and the court had to decide the costs. He resisted the defendant's claim for costs saying that he had refused arbitration or mediation. Held. The professional negligence pre-action protocol expected a party to explain why he refused mediation. That heavy costs had already been incurred was not a good reason, and nor was the fact that the allegation was of professional negligence. However: "The critical factor in this case, in my view, is whether, objectively viewed, a mediation had any real prospect of success. If mediation can have no real prospect of success of a party may, with impunity, refuse to proceed to mediation on this ground. But refusal is a high risk course to take, for if the court find that there was a real prospect, the party refusing to proceed to mediation may, as I have said, be severely penalised. Further, the hurdle in the way of a party refusing to proceed to mediation on this ground is high, for in making this objective assessment of the prospects of mediation, the starting point must surely be the fact that the mediation process itself can and does often bring about a more sensible and more conciliatory attitude on the part of the parties than might otherwise be expected to prevail before the mediation, and may produce a recognition of the strengths and weaknesses by each party of his own case and of that of his opponent, and a willingness to accept the give and take essential to a successful mediation. What appears to be incapable of mediation before the mediation process begins often proves capable of satisfactory resolution later."
In this case the claimant was so seriously disturbed that he was fixated on the claim and incapable of a balanced evaluation. The defendant should not be refused his costs.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Hamilton v Al Fayed and Others (No 2); CA 17-May-2002 - Times, 17 June 2002; Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 665; [2003] QB 1175
 
Hughes and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc [2003] 1 WLR 177; Times, 31 May 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 670; [2002] 4 All ER 633
20 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice Arden
Customs and Excise, Costs, Human Rights
Nicholas Hughes was charged with VAT fraud. Nicholas was the joint owner of a company with his brother Timothy, each holding 50% of the shares. Timothy was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against Nicholas, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its assets. Nicholas was acquitted but the assets of the company were used to meet the receiver's costs and expenses. In each case the Commissioners had been appointed receivers of the applicant's assets pending a decision in parallel criminal proceedings on a confiscation order. The final orders were not made, and the Commissioners appealed orders denying them their costs from the assets they had realised. Held: Save as provided otherwise, statutory receivers were to be treated precisely as their common-law counterparts. The regime of restraint and receivership orders was not contrary to the applicants' human rights. Acquitted defendants are not, save exceptionally, entitled to compensation for being deprived of their liberty while on remand, and it was no more unfair that they should be uncompensated for any adverse effects that restraint and receivership orders might have had upon their assets.
The introduction of CPR 69.7 had made a significant change in law and practice for receivers as regards remuneration.
Simon Brown LJ said: "I entirely accept that an acquitted (or indeed unconvicted) defendant must for these purposes be treated as an innocent person . . I cannot accept, however, that for this reason it must be regarded as disproportionate, still less arbitrary (another contention advanced by the respondents), to leave the defendant, against whom restraint and receivership orders have been made, uncompensated for such loss as they may have caused him - unless, of course, by establishing 'some serious fault' on the prosecutor's part he can bring himself within the strict requirements of section 89.
It is common ground that acquitted defendants are not, save in the most exceptional circumstances, entitled to compensation for being deprived of their liberty whilst on remand or indeed for any other heads of loss suffered through being prosecuted. In my judgment it is no more unfair, disproportionate or arbitrary that they should be uncompensated too for any adverse effects that restraint and receivership orders may have had upon their assets."
Supreme Court Act 1981 31 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 Part VI - European Convention on Human Rights First Protocol - Civil Procedure Rules 69.7
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Phoenix Finance Limited vFederation Internationale De L'automobile, Formula One Management Limited, Formula One Administration Limited Times, 27 June 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002; EWHC 1028 (Ch); [2002] EWHC 1028 (Ch)
22 May 2002
ChD
The Vice Chancellor
Contract, Arbitration, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant had purchased the interests of a failed Formula One car racing team, including, it said, the right to enter a team in Formula One races. It claimed to have been unlawfully excluded from racing. Held: The claimant had failed to comply with the requirements imposed upon participants, and was not entitled to race. Since the claimant sought rights under the contract, it was bound by the agreement to refer disputes to arbitration. As to costs, there was still a need to serve a letter before action, and in the absence of such a letter, even in a case where there was no pre-action protocol, a party could not complain if he was ordered to pay the other party's costs on an indemnity basis.
Arbitration Act 1996 9 44 - Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney Times, 26 June 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002
27 May 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Park
Damages, Torts - Other, Equity, Costs
The landlord sought an injunction against the defendant. The defendant countered, relying upon sec 2(1). Held: The remedy provided by the section was limited to the award of damages. It could not, therefore, be used to defend an action for an injunction. Whilst he might be entitled in equity to repudiate the lease, he could not repudiate only part of the lease. The landlord might e criticised for its earlier conduct of the case, but rule 44 was concerned with the behaviour of the parties in conducting the litigation itself, and the rule could not be used to overturn the costs consequences because of misbehaviour outside the litigation.
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1) - Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4)(a)

 
Mcclenaghan v Simpson and Another (Application for Costs) [2002] NIIT 54
28 May 2002
NIIT

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Lord Chancellor's Department v Singh [2002] EWHC 9027 (Costs)
29 May 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Floods of Queensferry Ltd and Another v Shand Construction Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 918
29 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Buxton
Costs
An application had been made for a non-party costs order against a director of the company claimant.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Paul Anthony Ashworth v Peterborough United Football Club Limited
10 Jun 2002
SCCO
Master Wright, Costs Judge
Costs



 
 Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden and Johnson (A Firm); CA 12-Jun-2002 - [2002] All ER (D) 39 (Jun); [2002] EWCA Civ 879; [2002] CP Rep 67; [2002] CPLR 693
 
Poster v JMC Holidays [2002] EWCA Civ 913
14 Jun 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Prielipp and Another v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 1001
19 Jun 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Q v Q (Family proceedings: Costs order) Times, 16 July 2002; Gazette, 21 August 2002
21 Jun 2002
FD
Wilson J
Costs, Family, Civil Procedure Rules
The provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules as to costs in Family division proceedings did not replace entirely the old rules after April 26, 1999, and the Leary case was not superceded. The requirement for summary assessment of costs for hearings less than a day did not abrogate the power to make such an assessment in longer cases, and indeed under the rules, the possibility should be considered in every case. In family cases, in particular, detailed assessments tended only to prolong bitterness.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites


 
Seray-Wurie v Hackney London Borough Council Times, 04 July 2002; Gazette, 30 August 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 909; [2002] 3 All ER 448; [2003] 1 WLR 257
25 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Dyson
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The claimant had applied for and been granted its costs certificate by default. The respondent claimed it had sent its point of issue notice in time. The council now applied under the rule for the court itself to re-open the decision to allow the objections to be made. The High Court acceded to the request. The claimant was refused leave to appeal by the judge. The claimant sought appealed. Held: The High Court, when it sat as an appeal court, did have power to re-open its own decisions in exceptional circumstances in order to avoid real injustice, following Taylor. There was no distinction in principle between the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In future, and pending any rules change, such applications should be made on paper to the high court. In this case no significant injustice could be shown.
Civil Procedure Rules 47.12
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Pepin v Watts and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 958
26 Jun 2002
CA

Costs
Application for permission to appeal out of time (2 years) on an issue in costs.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Callery v Gray (1) and (2); HL 27-Jun-2002 - Times, 02 July 2002; [2002] UKHL 28; [2002] 1 WLR 2000; [2002] PIQR P32; [2002] 3 All ER 417; [2003] RTR 4; [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 203; [2002] 2 Costs LR 205

 
 Medcalf v Mardell, Weatherill and Another; HL 27-Jun-2002 - Times, 28 June 2002; Gazette, 08 August 2002; [2002] UKHL 27; [2002] 3 All ER 731; [2003] 1 AC 120; [2002] NPC 89; [2002] PNLR 43; [2002] 3 WLR 172; [2002] CP Rep 70; [2002] CPLR 647; [2002] 3 Costs LR 428
 
B v Richard Pendelbury Associated Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWHC 1404 (QB)
28 Jun 2002
QBD
Turner J
Costs, Legal Professions

Supreme Court Act 1981 51
[ Bailii ]
 
Persaud and Another v Persaud and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1459
1 Jul 2002
CA

Legal Professions, Costs
Application for leave to appeal against award or wasted costs order against a barrister assisting legally aided client in case brought against non-legally aided party.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Factortame Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (No 8) Times, 09 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 932; [2002] 3 WLR 1104; [2003] QB 381; [2002] 3 Costs LR 467; [2002] 4 All ER 97; [2003] BLR 1
3 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Clarke
Costs
A firm of accountants had agreed to provide their services as experts in a case on the basis that they would be paid by taking part of any damages awarded. The respondent claimed that such an agreement was champertous and unlawful. Held: The tort of champerty as such had been abolished, but the rule remained as part of the law of public policy. There remained good reason why the principles of maintenance and champerty should apply with particular rigour to those conducting litigation. It would be only a rare case where an expert could properly financially support a case. In the absence of a statutory framework, the court must look for evidence of current practice in public policy. In this case the claimants had already succeeded on liability at the time when the experts were instructed, and public policy was not affronted.
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In Plus Group Ltd and others v Pyke [2002] EWCA Civ 1055
5 Jul 2002
CA
Brooke, Sedley, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Dooley v Parker and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1188
5 Jul 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Sirius International Insurance Corporation and others v Aktien-Gesellschaft [2002] EWHC 9010 (Costs)
9 Jul 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Gorlov, Regina (on the Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales, Reviewer of Complaints [2002] EWCA Civ 1191
9 Jul 2002
CA

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Alpacas Ltd v Wilsey (T/A Blackmore Vale Alpacas) [2002] EWHC 9009 (Costs)
9 Jul 2002
SCCo

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Nash (T/A Elite Carcraft) v Daniel and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1146
9 Jul 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Sayers v Clarke Walker (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1110; [2002] 1 WLR 3095
10 Jul 2002
CA

Costs, Legal Aid

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jm Ryan v Tretol Group Ltd and others [2002] EWHC 9023 (Costs)
10 Jul 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Boyd and Hutchinson (A Firm) v Foenander [2002] EWCA Civ 1168
12 Jul 2002
CA

Legal Professions, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Mitchell and Others v James and Others Times, 20 July 2002; Gazette, 19 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 997; [2002] EWCA Civ 997
12 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Potter and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The defendant had made an offer including an offer that each party bear their own costs. A later action led to an order on better terms, and the claimant sought costs on an indemnity basis. Held: The rules were generally incompatible with offers which included costs. Their purpose was to direct costs after a case and its issues had been considered by a judge, and such offers would offer opportunities for abuse. Whilst the rules did not prevent a party making an offer in whatever terms it chose, but equally nothing in rule 36.1(2) allowed a term as to costs as part of the offer for the purposes of obtaining indemnity costs.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.21
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Clegg and Another v Guarino [2002] EWCA Civ 1121
16 Jul 2002
CA

Wills and Probate, Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Olakunle O Olatawura v Alexander O Abiloye; CA 17-Jul-2002 - Times, 24 July 2002; Gazette, 19 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 998; [2003] 1 WLR 275
 
Clai Direct Test Cases [2002] EWHC 9002 (Costs)
19 Jul 2002
SCCo

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Claims Direct Test Cases [2002] EWHC 002 (Cost)
19 Jul 2002
SCCO
Chief Master Hurst, Senior Costs Judge
Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hurst v Leeming [2002] EWCA Civ 1173
23 Jul 2002
CA

Professional Negligence, Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mcilwraith v Mcilwraith and Stephens and Bolton [2002] EWHC 9028 (Costs)
24 Jul 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Latreefers Inc and others v Hobson and others [2002] EWHC 1696 (Ch)
25 Jul 2002
ChD
The Vice-Chancellor
Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Darougar v Belcher (T/A Park Street Garage) [2002] EWCA Civ 1262
25 Jul 2002
CA

Costs
Defendant's appeal against a costs order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Greenpeace Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1240
25 Jul 2002
CA

Costs
Appeal against costs orders after failure of application for judicial review.
[ Bailii ]
 
Fox v Graham Group Plc [2002] EWHC 9031 (Costs)
26 Jul 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Chorion Plc) v Westminster City Council Times, 21 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1126; [2002] All ER (D) 468; [2002] LLR 624; [2003] CPLR 41
30 Jul 2002
CA
Pill LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Costs, Licensing
The judge had awarded the costs of part of an action to one party, and provided that overall the costs were to be assessed if not agreed. The applicant sought to have its costs own assessed. Held: The order did not differentiate between the different parts on the question of assessment, and it was not possible to assess one part of the costs as opposed to the whole. Such a deferred assessment was different in nature from deciding whether a party would receive all or part of its costs.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Glencore International Ag v Metro Trading International Inc and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1252
31 Jul 2002
CA
Tuckey LJ
Company, Costs
Claimant's application for security for costs of defendant's cross cross appeal.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership; CA 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 09 September 2002; Gazette, 10 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1125

 
 Mohamad Ali Aoun v Hassan Bahri, Costas Angelou; CA 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1141
 
Toyota Financial Services (Uk) Plc and Another v Sharma and Another [2002] EWHC 9040 (Costs)
22 Aug 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Mehmet, Regina (on the Application of) v Clerk To the Justice of Miskin, Cynon Valley and Methyr Tydfill Petty Sessional Divisions [2002] EWCA Civ 1248
29 Aug 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke
Costs, Criminal Practice
The applicant sought leave to appeal refusal of a judicial review of the decision of the respondent with regard to the taxation of his costs under a defendant's costs order. The review had been refused as out of time and without merit. Held: The Court of Appeal could not hear an appeal from the High Court in a criminal matter, which would include this matter, and had no jurisdiction to deal with the case before it.
Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Aoun v Bahri and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1390
4 Sep 2002
CA
Brooke LJ, Tuckey LJ
Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Halloran v Delaney; CA 6-Sep-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1258; [2003] 1 WLR 28; [2002] 3 Costs LR 503; [2003] PIQR P5; [2003] RTR 147; [2003] RTR 9; [2003] 1 All ER 775
 
Halloran v Delaney [2002] EWHC 9029 (Costs)
6 Sep 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Jemma Trust Company Ltd. v Liptrott and Another [2002] EWHC 9013 (Costs)
12 Sep 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Peter D'Arcy Liptrott Jo [2002] EWHC 9008 (Costs)
12 Sep 2002
SCCO
Master Rodgers, Costs Judge
Wills and Probate, Costs, Legal Professions
The applicant challenged a solicitor's bill for the work in handling an estate. Two preliminary issues arose, as to the hourly rates applicable, and whether a value element should be charged. The court's task is to assess a sum which is fair and reasonable. Held: A rate above that generally charged by solicitors in the geographic area was justified where the practitioner was highly experienced and specialist. The claimant argued that a value element should no longer be paid. In view of the omnipresence of computer time recording systems, it is now wrong to charge on both a value element and a time element.
Solicitors (Non Contentious Business) Remuneration Order 1994 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Malkinson v Trim [2002] EWCA Civ 1273; [2003] CPLR 99; [2002] NPC 116; [2003] 1 WLR 463; [2003] 2 All ER 356; [2002] 3 Costs LR 515,; [2003] CP Rep 11
13 Sep 2002
CA
Potter, Chadwick LJJ< Wall J
Costs
The court was asked: "is a solicitor who has been represented by his own firm in the successful defence of proceedings brought against him personally, entitled (under an order for costs in his favour) to the profit costs of his firm in defending those proceedings? " Held: He was.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Alan Robert Miskin, Jennifer Miskin v St John Vaughan
18 Sep 2002
SCCO
Master Campbell, Costs Judge
Costs, VAT
The claimants resisted an order to pay the VAT element awarded on the defendant's legal costs. The revenue had been unable to state clearly whether the defendant would be able to recover VAT, in which case it would not be payable, or the reverse. It had at the same time become clear that costs had been invoiced to the insurers, and the claimant challenged a liability to the defendant when the bill had not been addressed to him. Held: Costs could be claimed even if they may in fact be paid by a third party. Although the insurance company had taken over the claim, the indemnity principle had not been infringed, because the party would not look only to the insurers to pay their costs. VAT was not payable to a party who could recover their VAT as input tax. The party no longer existed, and was no longer registered for VAT. The insurers had however paid part of the VAT, and it was properly recoverable.
Costs Practice Direction 43 5.3
1 Cites


 
Miskin and Another v St John Vaughan [2002] EWHC 9007 (Costs)
18 Sep 2002
SCCo

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Malkinson v Trim Times, 11 October 2002; Gazette, 17 October 2002
20 Sep 2002
CA
Potter LJ, Chadwick LJ, Wall J
Costs, Legal Professions, Civil Procedure Rules
The solicitor had successfully defended proceedings brought against him personally, but employing his own firm to represent him. He sought his costs. The claimant disputed his right to costs. Held: The claimant had served a notice of discontinuance of the action, and by doing so made himself liable for costs. The judge had applied the London Scottish case. There should be no difference between work done by an employee of a solicitor, and work done by a partner. Rule 48.6 had not changed the situation.
Civil Procedure Rules 48.6
1 Cites


 
Alliss v Legal Services Commission [2002] EWHC 9032 (Costs)
25 Sep 2002
SCCO

Costs, Legal Aid

[ Bailii ]
 
In re R (Children) [2002] EWCA Civ 1465
7 Oct 2002
CA
Justice Bodey
Children, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Thompson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Law Society [2002] EWCA Civ 1744
9 Oct 2002
CA

Costs
Application for permission to appeal against the refusal of Scott Baker J to grant an extension of time for making an application to challenge a summary assessment.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hall v Rover Financial Services (GB) Ltd (t/a Land Rover Financial Services) Times, 08 November 2002; Gazette, 21 November 2002
10 Oct 2002
CA
Tuckey, Longmore LLJ
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant had won her case, but been deprived of her costs. She claimed for conversion after she had purchased a car without knowledge of it having been on hire purchase, and after it was seized by the finance company. The judge had considered that she should have been suspicious. Held: The judge had found that each of the circumstances which might have caused suspicion in other minds had failed to do so in the claimant's mind. For a successful party to be deprived of her costs, any misconduct had to relate to the proceedings themselves. These issues related to credit, and not to the proceedings. The Civil Procedure Rules had not changed this.
Hire Purchase Act 1974 27(2) - Civil Procedure Rules 44.3

 
Hall v Rover Financial Services Ltd (Gb) (T/A Land Rover Financial Services) [2002] EWHC 9033 (Costs)
10 Oct 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
St Mary's Mansions Ltd v Limegate Investment Co Ltd, Sarruf and others Gazette, 24 October 2002; Gazette, 07 November 2002; Times, 13 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1492
11 Oct 2002
CA
Lords Justice Ward, Mummery and Jonathan Parker
Landlord and Tenant, Costs
The tenants under long leases, paid a service charge. The Landlord kept the excess in a reserve fund, though no proper mechanism existed for this in the lease. The tenants requested its repayment, claiming that under the 1987 Act, the fund was held in trust. The landlord sought to use the fund to pay its legal expenses. Held: It was wrong to hold money paid for one purpose, for another unspecified purpose, and the excess was to be repaid. The landlord was not able to charge his legal expenses to the fund.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 42
[ Bailii ]
 
Purfleet Farms Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Gazette, 31 October 2002; Times, 07 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1430
15 Oct 2002
CA
Potter, Chadwick, Wall LLJ
Land, Costs
The appellant had sought compensation after compulsory acquisition of his land. He had beaten the final offer made by the respondent, but the tribunal had judged the landowner's offer itself to be so high that it awarded only part of the costs. He appealed. Held: A finding as to the applicant's own offer could not justify the reduction in the costs award. The tribunal could disallow costs for a special reason, but the normal award must allow for the reasonable and necessary expenses of determining the amount of the disputed compensation. Valuation is an exercise in judgement, and is imprecise. It would be rare to disallow costs on such a basis. In truth here the tribunal had been requested to make fruitless comparisons with other sites, which had unnecessarily incurred costs, and the award stood.
Land Compensation Act 1961 5
[ Bailii ]
 
Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 3) Times, 06 November 2002; Gazette, 01 November 2002
21 Oct 2002
ChD
Jacob J
Costs
The plaintiff had accepted a payment in which was more advantageous than its own offer of settlement. It now sought costs on an indemnity rather than a standard basis. They argued that under the rule they were entitled to costs on an indemnity basis up to date of acceptance. Held: The rules said that once a payment in was accepted the court retained no discretion. Rule 36.21 could only be applied where the court had itself been involved in deciding the damages.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.21
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Brawley v Marczynski and Another [2003] 1 WLR 813; Times, 07 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003; Gazette, 16 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1453
21 Oct 2002
CA
Aldous, Tuckey, Longmore LLJ
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules, Legal Aid
The defendants appealed an award of costs on an indemnity basis against them in the favour of a legally aided claimant. Held: Indemnity costs were often intended to indicate disapproval of a party's behaviour in an action, and were awarded in several and discretionary circumstances. It was not an objection of principle to say that a legally aided litigant would not recover the difference between standard and indemnity costs, and that therefore indemnity costs should not be awarded in favour of a legally aided claimant. Appeal refused.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ralph Hulme Gary (A Firm) v Gwillim [2002] EWHC 9034 (Costs)
22 Oct 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Ralph Hume Garry (a Firm) v Gwillim Times, 04 November 2002; Gazette, 21 November 2002
22 Oct 2002
CA
Ward, Mance, Nourse, LLJ
Legal Professions, Costs
The appellant sought to have struck out the claimant's action to recover their costs having represented him. He said that the detail in the bill was so deficient as not to comply with the requirements of the Act. Held: Though the detail given in the bill was inadequate, it was permissible to make allowance for the appellant's own knowledge and understanding of the case to satisfy the gravamen of the requirement which was that the client should know what he was being asked to pay for. The inadequacies could be remedied by accompanying documents, or information the client already had. In modern times, the least a client could expect was a computer printout to show what had taken place.
Solicitors Act 1974 64 69
1 Cites


 
Individual Homes Ltd v Macbream Investments Ltd Times, 14 November 2002; Gazette, 28 November 2002
23 Oct 2002
ChD
Alan Steinfeld QC
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant had in the course of proceedings obtained an order requiring an employee of the third party to attend as a witness. That third party now sought to be joined so as to claim its costs. Held: The Act and the rules allowed the court to make an order for costs against a party in favour of a third party. The claimant should pay their reasonable costs.
Supreme Court Act 1981 51 - Civil Procedure Rules 48.2
1 Cites


 
Chitolie v Customs and Excise [2002] EWCA Civ 1580
23 Oct 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Gee v Shell UK Ltd; CA 24-Oct-2002 - Times, 04 November 2002; Gazette, 19 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1479; [2003] IRLR 82
 
In re T (A Child) [2002] EWCA Civ 1773
24 Oct 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Pepin v Watts and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1652
30 Oct 2002
CA

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Singh and Another v Sardar Investments and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1706
31 Oct 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v Logan EAT/1005/02; [2002] EAT 1005 - 02 - 3110; [2002] UKEAT 1005 - 02 - 3110
31 Oct 2002
EAT
Serota QC J
Employment, Costs
The applicant police officer sought an order for his costs. The Commissioner objected, saying that since his costs were being met by the Police Federation, he himself had no costs to claim. Held. "I cannot see that this case differs in any way from the ordinary case in which a trade union supports litigation of one of its members, and it is well established in those circumstances that where an Order for costs is made in favour of the member, he is entitled to recover those costs on the basis to which I have referred. I am satisfied, therefore, that, subject to the exercise of my discretion, I can make an Order for costs in favour of Mr Logan."
In this case the costs sought arose from a delay after a stay pending the outcome of other proceedings. That stay had been inevitable because of a risk of prejudice to a criminal trial. Even so, the Commissioner had failed to act adequately to anticipate the need for an adjournment, and given his involvement with the proceedings, that failure made a costs award appropriate. That award was limited to those costs which derived from the failings.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ]
 
Bell Electric Ltd v Aweco Appliance Systems Gmbh and Co Kg Times, 20 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1501
31 Oct 2002
CA
Potter, Carnwath LJJ
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The respondent sought to appeal. The claimant requested the court to order that as a pre-condition of being allowed to appeal, the respondent should pay into court, or give adequate security for, the costs awarded at first instance, even though there was no evidence that a vigorously followed enforcement would not succeed if the appeal failed. Held: There was no reason in principle to say the court had no jurisdiction to make such an order in appropriate circumstances, such as the respondent being already in breach, the refusal of a stay, or that the failure to pay was based upon a cynical taking advantage of court rules.
Civil Procedure Rules 52.9
[ Bailii ]
 
Clyde and others v Thomson Holidays [2002] EWHC 9011 (Costs)
1 Nov 2002
SCCo

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company Sa and Another v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD Times, 27 December 2002; Gazette, 30 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2210 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1
4 Nov 2002
ComC
Aikens J
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
One party had made a formal offer of settlement under the Rules, which had been declined, but the offer made was more favourable to him than the order which had eventually made. Held: The rejecting party should normally pay costs on an indemnity basis and interest at a higher rate as from the date of rejection. This might be avoided where the rejecting party persuaded the court that it had a proper reason for the rejection for example its own inability to assess the claim because of the failure of the offering party to make adequate disclosure.
[ Bailii ]
 
Betts v London Borough of Ealing [2002] EWCA Civ 1696
5 Nov 2002
CA

Housing, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Scott v Newton and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1743
8 Nov 2002
CA

Contract, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Kohanzad v Mazurek [2002] EWCA Civ 1745
11 Nov 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer and Sons Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1765
12 Nov 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Reiner, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Hackney [2002] EWCA Civ 1725
12 Nov 2002
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Adrian Alan Ltd v Fuglers (A Firm) [2003] EWHC 9025 (Costs)
13 Nov 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Adrian Allen Ltd v Fuglers (A Firm) [2003] EWHC 9033 (Costs)
13 Nov 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Maunder-Taylor v Blaquiere [2002] EWCA Civ 1747
14 Nov 2002
CA
Aldous LJ
Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Shipshape Holdings Ltd v Stafford and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1767
19 Nov 2002
CA

Costs
Appeal from refusal of order for security for costs.
[ Bailii ]
 
CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Mora Hotel Corp Nv and Another Times, 28 November 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1688
19 Nov 2002
CA
Peter Gibson, Mance, Hale, LJJ
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
A party had been ordered to pay into court as a condition of an application to set aside a judgment, a substantial sum in respect of past costs, and also as security for costs to be incurred. The defendant appealed. Held. The judge had not differentiated between the two. On an application for security for costs, a court could look to the resources which might be available to the party. That might also be relevant when ordering payment of past costs, but the considerations differed. In this case there was no absence of good faith as in Oury. The order was also wrong in being, in reality, directed against a third party against whom no costs order could properly be made. The element relating to security for future costs stood.
Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(f) 3.1(3)(a) 3.1(5)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Dugmore v Swansea National Health Trust and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1755
21 Nov 2002
CA

Litigation Practice, Costs
Costs on grant of leave to appeal to House of Lords.
[ Bailii ]
 
Haworth v Green [2002] EWHC 9036 (Costs)
22 Nov 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Lambert v Lambert [2002] EWCA Civ 1832
25 Nov 2002
CA

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Powell v Herefordshire Health Authority [2002] EWCA Civ 1786
27 Nov 2002
CA
Kay LJ, Phillips MR, Dyson LJ
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The defendant appealed an order that it should pay interest on the costs of the claimant from a date in 1994 when interim judgement had been given, even though damages were finally assessed only in 2001, and the costs had not yet been incurred. Held: The court had not had referred to it the provisions of the rule. That rule gave the court a discretion as to the date form which interest was to be awarded on costs, and the order had been made per incuriam.
Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(6)(g)
[ Bailii ]
 
A and Others v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others Times, 11 December 2002
27 Nov 2002
FD
Sumner J
Family, Children, Media, Costs
Applications had been made by fathers for specific issue orders that their children be immunised. The respondents sought orders to allow the cases to be either heard in open court or for other reporting restrictions to be lifted. As a result of their application, the time allocated for the substantive hearings had been severely compromised, and costs were sought against them. Held: A timely application by the media should not result in a costs order, but here the applications had been late, and had considerably disrupted the hearing. Even if the application was arguable, as it was here, it was not for the media to argue that the individuals involved should themselves have taken any steps. The matter of whether reporting should be allowed and on what terms was for the court alone. An application which was late might be viewed as improper for that very reason, if disruption resulted. Here, however, a pre-trial order might have raised expectations that reporting would be allowed, and a costs order was not appropriate.

 
Sharratt v London Central Bus Co and Other Cases [2002] EWHC 9006 (Costs)
27 Nov 2002
SCCO
Chief Master Hurst, Senior Costs Judge
Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Powell v Herefordshire Health Authority [2002] EWHC 9035 (Costs)
27 Nov 2002
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWHC 9037 (Costs)
28 Nov 2002
SCCO

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Shaker v Al-Bedrawi and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1900
2 Dec 2002
CA

Company, Torts - Other, Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence; Admn 5-Dec-2002 - [2002] EWHC 2712 (Admin)

 
 The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, The Secretary of State for Defence (2); Admn 5-Dec-2002 - Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2712 (Admin)
 
Grocutt v Khan [2002] EWCA Civ 1945
11 Dec 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Costs
The common law is a maze and not a motorway.
[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions v Baylis (Gloucester) Ltd and others [2000] EWCA Civ 361
16 Dec 2002
CA

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others; QBD 17-Dec-2002 - Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2759 (QB)
 
Giambrone and others v JMC Holidays Ltd (Formerly Sunworld Holidays Ltd) [2002] EWHC 2932 (QB); [2003] 2 Costs LR 189
20 Dec 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Morland
Personal Injury, Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Giambrone v JMC Holidays Ltd (No.2) [2002] EWHC 9038 (Costs)
20 Dec 2002
SCCO

Costs

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