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: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 144 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band (2003) 114 CCR 2d 108
2003

LeBel J
Commonwealth, Costs
(Supreme Court of Canada) A challenge was to be made by Indian Bands to a prohibition on logging on their lands without prior authorisation. They asserted aboriginal title to the land in question and complained of a breach of their constitutionally protected aboriginal rights. They sought a protective costs order. Held: "The jurisdiction to order costs of a proceeding is a venerable one. The English common law courts did not have inherent jurisdiction over costs, but beginning in the late 13th century they were given the power by statute to order costs in favour of a successful party. Courts of equity had an entirely discretionary jurisdiction to order costs according to the dictates of conscience." The court set down four principles: (i) The party seeking the order must be impecunious to the extent that without such an order that party would have been deprived of the opportunity to proceed with the case; (ii) The claimant must establish a prima facie case of sufficient merit to warrant its pursuit; (iii) Public law cases, as a class, were different from ordinary civil disputes, and the case must fall into a sub-category where the special circumstances that justified an award of interim costs were related to the public importance of the questions at issue in the case; and (iv) It was for the judge at first instance to determine whether a particular case, which might be classified as special by its very nature as a public interest case, was special enough to rise to the level where the unusual measure of ordering costs would be appropriate..
1 Citers


 
In Re Independent Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [2003] 1 BCLC 640
2003

Ferris J
Insolvency, Costs
Ferris J was required to consider the insolvency office-holders' remuneration, assisted by a solicitor with wide insolvency experience, whose report sets out the general principles then accepted by the insolvency profession as the yardstick for claiming remuneration in insolvency proceedings.
1 Citers



 
 G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs); FD 2003 - (2003) 2 FCR 339
 
Clai Direct Test Cases Tranche 2 Issues [2003] EWHC 9005 (Costs)
3 Jan 2003
SCCo

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Khan v Lord Chancellor Times, 28 January 2003
17 Jan 2003
QBD
Mitchell J
Costs, Criminal Practice, Legal Professions
The applicant was a barrister. He had been tried and acquitted of criminal charges, and had been awarded cost from central funds. He appealed from a refusal of a claim for payment for the time he spent in preparation. Held: The applicant was bound by the Bar's Code of Conduct, which would have required him in defending himself to do so as litigant in person, since he could not represent himself professionally. The Regulations appeared to restrict a claim to actual costs incurred. He could not be remunerated for his own court appearances, but preparatory work was another matter. Boswell had extended the Chorley case, and his work should be recognised and rewarded. If Boswell had not so extended the rule, then this case would do so.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(6) - Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335) 7
1 Cites


 
Barry Whitev Peter White (Deceased) [2003] EWCA Civ 156
20 Jan 2003
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Dyson
Legal Professions, Costs
An appeal was made against an order refusing an award of costs against solicitors for the opposing party. Held: The judge's order saying that an aplication should have been forewarned earlier was made within his discretion, and was appropriate. The value at stake meant that this application was disproportionate, and satellite litigation of this sort was to be discouraged. The fact that no indication was given at the time that a wasted costs order would be sought is rarely likely to be a sufficient reason for refusing to accede to a subsequent application for such an order.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Edwards and others v Roche Products Ltd [2003] EWHC 9022 (Costs)
22 Jan 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Gliddon v Lloyd Maunder Ltd [2003] EWHC 9007 (Costs)
31 Jan 2003
SCCo

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
F, Regina (on the Application Of) v Head Teacher of Addington High School and others [2003] EWHC 228 (Admin)
5 Feb 2003
Admn

Education, Legal Professions, Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Telford and Wrekin, Regina (on the Application Of) v Shrewsbury Crown Court; Admn 6-Feb-2003 - [2003] EWHC 230 (Admin)
 
Neave v Neave [2003] EWCA Civ 325; Gazette, 10 April 2003
6 Feb 2003
CA
Lords Justice Potter, Chadwick and Tuckey
Costs
The claimant sought return of vehicles from her son. Her compromise offer was rejected, but she bettered it at trial. She appealed refusal of her indemnity costs. Held: The offer letter had not complied strictly with the requirements of the Rules, but the purpose of the rule was to encourage parties to compromise their litigation in order to save the resources of the court, irrespective of whether any litigation should have been commenced at all. The offer was clear and reasonable. Accordingly the irregularity was waived, and costs on an indemnity basis awarded from 21 days after the letter.
[ Bailii ]
 
In re Claims Direct Test Cases Times, 18 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 136; [2003] Lloyd's Rep IR 677; [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 788; [2003] 4 All ER 508; [2003] PIQR P31; [2003] 2 Costs LR 254
12 Feb 2003
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Brooke, Sir Anthony Evans
Costs
The parties sought repayment as part of their costs of insurance premiums paid by claimants undertaking litigation. Held: The underwriters charged £140.00 for each case. Claims Direct charged a premium of £1,250.00 for each case, and out of which they paid the underwriters. The underwriters would not insure unless appropriate arrangements were in place for management of the cases, and they were not in a position themselve sto provide that support. Nevertheless, it had not been the intention of Parliament to overload the recoverable premium with such additional costs. Some of the additional elements might be recoverable by the solicitors conducting the cases, but not otherwise.
Access to Justice Act 1999 29
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Stena Rederi Aktiebolag, Stena Line Aktiebolag v Irish Ferries Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 214
13 Feb 2003
CA

Costs, Intellectual Property

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ultraframe UK Ltd v Clayton and others [2003] EWHC 242 (Ch)
14 Feb 2003
ChD
Laddie J
Costs, Intellectual Property
Laddie J said: "I have to resolve a dispute between the parties on the issue of costs following on from the determination of the preliminary issues ordered to be heard by His Honour Judge Behrens. It is difficult to summarise the complex multifaceted dispute which exists between the parties and in relation to which the determination of the preliminary issues arose. The issues I had to concern myself with related to the ownership of the design rights in the parts from which conservatories are made, whether a case of infringement by the defendants have been out and whether design rights subsisted. However this is just a part of what is really a very big and convoluted dispute. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Veronica Pirie v Doreen Violet Ayling [2003] EWHC 9006 (Costs)
18 Feb 2003
SCCO
Chief Master Hurst, Senior Costs Judge
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 4) Times, 18 March 2003; Gazette, 17 April 2003; [2003] EWHC 624 (Pat)
18 Feb 2003
PatC
Laddie J
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules, Intellectual Property
The court refused to make an order for a payment of interim costs when the substantive claim for costs remained to be heard. The claimant had accepted a payment in entitling it to its costs, but now sought an interimn award before the full costs could be assessed. Any rule allowinmg a judge to make such an assessment could not apply where the judge had not heard the substantive claim. In this case the costs judge would be blind to the underlying issues. Application refused.
Civil Procedure Rules 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
P and O Nedlloyd BV Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg v Utaniko Limited/East West Corporation (No 2) Times, 21 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 174; Gazette, 10 April 2003; [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 265
19 Feb 2003
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Mance
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimants had made a Part 36 offer at first instance, but the matter was appealed. Having won at appeal they sought their costs on an indemnity basis of the appeal also. Held: If a party wished to protect itself by a Part 36 offer, it must be made both at first instance, and again before the appeal.
Civil Procedure Rules 36
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sajida Ahmed v P Powell [2003] EWHC 9011 (Costs)
19 Feb 2003
SCCO
Chief Master Hurst, Senior Costs Judge
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Cibc Mellon Trust Co v Mora Hotel Corporation Nv [2003] EWHC 9037 (Costs)
19 Feb 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
East West Corporation v Po Nedlloyd Bv [2003] EWHC 9034 (Costs)
19 Feb 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
C v M [2004] EWHC 90025 (Costs)
20 Feb 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (T/A Washington Dc) (No.2) [2003] EWHC 9024 (Costs); [2003] 2 Costs LR 204
20 Feb 2003
SCCO

Costs
The appellant had been successful at first instance, had lost (unanimously) in the Court of Appeal and its appeal was allowed (unanimously) in the House of Lords. Held: The general principles as to taxation of costs apply equally in the House of Lords: "With regard to the solicitors' claim a success fee of 100% is sought. [Counsel for the Appellant] produced to us the opinion of Leading Counsel prior to the CFA being entered into which put the chances of success at no more than evens. That opinion was given against a background in which the appellant company had been successful at first instance and lost in the Court of Appeal. It is quite clear that the issues were finely balanced. It is generally accepted that if the chances of success are no better than 50% the success fee should be 100%.
The thinking behind this is that if a solicitor were to take two identical cases with a 60% chance of success in each it is likely that one would be lost and the other won. Accordingly the success fee (of 100%) in the winning case would enable the solicitor to bear the loss of running the other case and losing.
There is an argument for saying that in any case which reached trial a success fee of 100% is easily justified because both sides presumably believed that they had an arguable and winnable case. In this case we have no doubt at all that the matter was finely balanced and that the appropriate success fee is therefore 100%."
Practice Directions Applicable to Judicial Taxations in the House of Lords 27
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Alpha Chauffeurs Ltd v Citygate Dealership Ltd ((T/A Hr Owen) and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 207; Gazette, 17 April 2003
20 Feb 2003
CA
Lords Justice Mummery, Chadwick and Dyson
Costs
After an action with regard to a lease contract for a car, orders were made including for costs. The costs orders were now appealed. The claimant recovered nominal damages from the first defendant, and substantial damages from the second. The second in turn recovered substantially against the first. Held: The order made did not distribute the costs according to the burden of the judgment, and the judge had not given any reason for departing from the normal practice. The order was wrong, and orders were made distributing the costs with the fault found by the judge..
[ Bailii ]
 
Lloyds TSB v Lampert [2003] EWHC 9023 (Costs)
20 Feb 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Groupama Insurance Company Ltd v Overseas Partners Re Ltd and Another [2003] EWHC 290 (Comm)
21 Feb 2003
ComC

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Geologistics Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme [2003] EWHC 629 (Admin)
4 Mar 2003
Admn

Insurance, Costs, Insolvency

Policyholder (Protection) Act 1975 6(4) 6(5)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Persaud and Another v Persaud and others [2003] EWCA Civ 394; [2003] PNLR 26; [2004] 1 Costs LR 1
6 Mar 2003
CA
Peter Gibson LJ, Mummery LJ, Blackburne J
Legal Professions, Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sarwar v Alam [2003] EWHC 9001 (Costs)
7 Mar 2003
SCCo

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Boyd and Hutchinson v Jennifer Joseph [2003] EWHC 413 (Ch); Gazette, 15 May 2003
14 Mar 2003
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Patten
Legal Professions, Costs
The claimant had been awarded costs, and sought to charge her time as a solicitor. Held: The claimant had only a limited practicing certificate, which would allow her to work for others only without charge. She could not for these proceedings charge on the basis on which she would not be allowed to practise.
Civil Procedure Rules 51
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Crosbie v Munroe, Motor Insurer's Bureau [2003] EWCA Civ 350; Times, 25 March 2003; Gazette, 22 May 2003
14 Mar 2003
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claim had been settled before action, and costs only proceedings had been instigated. He appealed a decision as to the award of costs in that case. The question was whether the phrase 'the proceedings which gave rise to the assessment proceedings' referred to the only actual proceedings, the costs claim, or to the settled claim. Held: CPR 47.19 does not contain any simple mechanism for deciding how the costs of the assessment proceedings should fall if the offer is accepted or refused (when with hindsight it should have been accepted). 44.12A had been introduced to deal with costs only cases. Until the time the substantive claim is settled, the "proceedings" relate to liability and the amount of any compensation. After the substantive claim is settled, the "proceedings" relate to the assessment of the costs the paying party has to pay.
Civil Procedure Rules 44.12A
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Boyd and Hutchinson v Joseph [2003] EWHC 9027 (Costs)
14 Mar 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Crosbie v Munroe [2003] EWHC 9028 (Costs)
14 Mar 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others [2003] EWHC 472 (Comm); Times, 29 March 2003
17 Mar 2003
ComC
Tomlinson J
Costs, Insurance
The court was able to make costs orders which differentiated between different stages and elements of a case. This might well result, as here, in a situation of a succesful claimant being ordered to pay 80% of the defendant's costs, because of costs incurred pursuing issues on which it lost.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.21(3)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
GW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality) [2003] EWHC 611 (Fam); [2003] Fam Law 386; [2003] 2 FLR 108; [2003] 2 FCR 289
18 Mar 2003
FD
Mostyn QC J
Costs, Family
An entitlement to an equal division must reflect not only the parties' respective contributions 'but also an accrual over time', and it would be 'fundamentally unfair' that a party who has made domestic contributions during a marriage of 12 years should be awarded the same proportion of the assets as a party who has made the domestic contributions for more than 20 years.
Mostyn QC J said: "[Foley] . . is now nearly 22 years old. The case of White v White has emphasised that the law in this area is not moribund but must move to reflect changing social values. I cannot imagine anyone nowadays seriously stigmatising pre-marital cohabitation as 'living in sin' or lacking the quality of emotional commitment assumed in marriage. Thus, in my judgment, where a relationship moves seamlessly from cohabitation to marriage without any major alteration in the way the couple live, it is unreal and artificial to treat the periods differently. On the other hand, if it is found that the pre-marital cohabitation was on the basis of a trial period to see if there was any basis for later marriage then I would be of the view that it would not be right to include it as part of the 'duration of the marriage'. This was the finding made in the recent case of F v F (unreported) 14 January 2003 by Hartmann J in the High Court of Hong Kong, which decision contains some valuable insights on this and other aspects of the law of ancillary relief. There is no basis for such a finding in this case, and I therefore include the 18 months of pre-marital cohabitation here as part of the 'duration of the marriage'
and "I do not shrink from saying that this is a difficult issue. The logic deployed by Mr. Pointer has obvious force. But on the other hand it seems to me that to adopt it requires me to put a blue pencil straight through the statutory criterion of the duration of the marriage. The failure of the judge in L v L (Financial Provision: Contributions) [2002] 1 FLR 642 (Lambert) to give sufficient weight to this factor was specifically criticised by the Court of Appeal. It seems to me that the assumption of equal value of contribution is very obvious where the marriage is over 20 years. For shorter periods the assumption seems to me to be more problematic. I am not attracted to a formulaic solution, as suggested by John Eekelaar, but I do in essence accept his proposition that the entitlement to an equal division must reflect not only the parties' respective contributions but also an accrual over time".
Family Proceedings (Amendment No 2) Rules 1999 (1999 No 3491) 2.69B - Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 23
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Williams v Devon County Council [2003] EWHC 9031 (Costs)
18 Mar 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Macpherson v Bevan Ashford [2003] EWHC 9032 (Costs)
20 Mar 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Rowlands and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Royal and Sun Alliance Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 383
24 Mar 2003
CA
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Mantell Lord Justice Waller
Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Frost v James Finlay Bank Ltd [2003] EWHC 9008 (Costs)
25 Mar 2003
SCCo

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Moy v Pettman Smith (A Firm) and Another; CA 25-Mar-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 467
 
A L Barnes Ltd v Time Talk (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 402; Times, 09 April 2003; [2003] BLR 331
26 Mar 2003
CA

Costs, Contract
The claimant appealed a costs order which had denied him the substantial part of his costs despite feeling that he had won the case. The court had said that no order should be made for payment of the expert witness' costs of either party. Held: The judge had erred. He should first have asked which was the successful party, before then exercising his discretion, rather than first separating out one issue, and then making that judgment. The claimant was entitled in the circumstances of this case to recover 25% of his costs.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Arrowfield Services v BP Collins [2003] EWHC 9035 (Costs)
26 Mar 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Islam v Ali [2003] EWCA Civ 612
26 Mar 2003
CA
Auld LJ
Contract, Costs
For a costs appeal to succeed it must be established that the judge has exceeded the limits of his proper discretion by the order made. Auld LJ said that the Court should only intervene: "the judge has either erred in principle in his approach, or has left out of account, or taken into account, some feature that he should, or should not, have considered, or that [the exercise of] his discretion is wholly wrong because the court is forced to the conclusion that he has not balanced the various factors fairly in the scale."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jackson v The Lord Chancellor's Department [2003] EWHC 9030 (Costs)
27 Mar 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Kirin Amgen Inc and Another v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd and others; CA 27-Mar-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 524
 
Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another v Steinberg [2003] EWHC 9010 (Costs)
27 Mar 2003
SCCO

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wagstaff v Colls [2003] EWHC 9036 (Costs)
2 Apr 2003
SCCO

Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wagstaff v Colls and Another Times, 17 April 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 469; [2003] 4 Costs LR 535; [2003] CP Rep 50; [2003] PNLR 29
2 Apr 2003
CA
Ward, Buxton, Arden LJJ
Legal Professions, Costs
The action had been stayed by an order on agreed terms. The claimant sought a wasted costs order against the defendants' solicitors on the ground that they had witheld certain facts during the litigation. The defendants argued that they should first apply for a lift of the stay. Held: An application of a wasted costs order was only tangential to the main proceedings, and it was not necessary first to apply to lift the stay. The action was not dead as if it had been dismissed. The actions required under the Tomlin order had been concluded, and a wasted costs application had nothing to with the defendants and would not affect them adversely. There was no need to lift the stay, just as there would be no need for permission to pursue such an applcation after a final order in any proceedings.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Littlewoods Organisation Plc, Regina (on the Application of) v Customs and Excise [2003] EWHC 1369 (Admin)
10 Apr 2003
Admn

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Orwin v British Coal Corporation [2003] EWHC 757 (Ch)
10 Apr 2003
ChD

Legal Aid, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Kopel v Safeway Stores Plc EAT/281/02; [2003] EAT 0281 - 02 - 1104; [2003] UKEAT 0281 - 02 - 1104; [2003] IRLR 753
11 Apr 2003
EAT
The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting
Employment, Costs
EAT The Tribunal had concluded that the claimant’s refusal of an employer’s offer amounted to unreasonable conduct. Held: Mittig J said: "The Employment Appeal Tribunal had not erred in exercising its discretion under Rule 14(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and making a Costs Order against the applicant on the grounds that part of her claim was seriously misconceived and that her failure to accept the employer’s substantial offer of settlement was unreasonable conduct of the proceedings."
As to the use of Calderbank offers in employment law proceedings: "There is no question of any rule in Calderbank v Calderbank applying to proceedings before the employment tribunal. The principle in Calderbank is that a party to matrimonial proceedings against whom a money claim is made can protect his position as to costs by making an offer of settlement marked without prejudice save as to costs. The offer may not be referred to during the main hearing but may be once judgment is given: if the order made is less favourable than the offer, the court may take the offer into account when considering what if any order for costs to make." and "There is no doubt, however, that an offer of the Calderbank type is a factor which the employment tribunal can take into account under rule 14."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ]
 
Freeserve.com PLC v Director General of Telecommunications [2003] CAT 6; 1007/2/3/02
16 Apr 2003
CAT

Commercial, Costs
Transcript of judgment on costs.
[ CAT ]
 
Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc [2003] UKEAT 0397 - 02 - 2904
29 Apr 2003
EAT

Employment, Costs
Exercise of an Employment Tribunal's discretion in the award of costs.
[ Bailii ]
 
National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot Firers, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWHC 1159 (Admin)
1 May 2003
Admn

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jones and Another v Congregational and General Insurance plc Times, 07 July 2003
2 May 2003
QBD
Chamber QC J
Legal Aid, Costs
The claimants had lost their claim on an insurance policy, and had had costs awarded against them subject only to the issue of whether the fact that they had been legally aided protected them. Held: The applicants had been found to be guilty of fraud, both as to the underlying claim, and in their applications for legal aid. They were accordingly not entitled to the protection which those with a legal aid certificate would normally receive.
Access to Justice Act 1999 11(1)

 
Voice and Script International Ltd v Alghafar [2003] EWCA Civ 736
8 May 2003
CA
Judge LJ
Contract, Costs
The court has a wide discretion whether to order the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis and the court of Appeal will rarely disturb the judge's order as to costs.
Judge LJ said: "By treating the absence of allocation to track as conclusive in my judgment District Judge Jenkins misdirected himself. The omission may have meant that the small claims costs regime did not follow as a virtual automatic starting point, but it did not preclude the Court even from considering whether it would be reasonable to make an assessment consistent with the small cost regime, or for that matter to apply the regime for a claim which it should never have exceeded and never was anything more than a small claim. If that approach is not expressly stated in the Civil Procedure Rules, it follows from two essential principles. First, the discretionary nature of costs orders; and secondly, the overriding requirement of proportionality in civil litigation generally and also as an essential agreement for consideration when any question of costs arises. See Home Office v Lownds [2002] EWCA 365."
Civil Procedure Rules 44.4.2
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
A B and others v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 1034 (QB); Gazette, 22 April 2004
9 May 2003
QBD
Gage J
Litigation Practice, Health Professions, Costs
The claimants were involved in a group litigation with regard to the removal of organs without consent from deceased children. The defendant sought an order capping the costs which might be claimed. Held: In GLO cases the desirability of ensuring that costs are kept within bounds makes it unnecessary for the court to require exceptional circumstances before exercising its discretion to make a costs cap order. Any costs cap should only relate to the costs incurred in relation to generic issues. An order was made identifying limits to the separate areas. The court's general powers of case management were sufficiently wide to encompass the making of a costs capping order both in group litigation and in other actions.
Supreme Court Act 1981 51
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hurst v Leeming [2003] EWHC 9026 (Costs)
9 May 2003
SCCO

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Moore Times, 15 May 2003; Gazette, 03 July 2003
12 May 2003
CACD
Rose LJ, Grigson, Beatson JJ
Human Rights, Contempt of Court, Costs
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court, but succeeded on appeal. Costs had been ordered in his favour, but the matter had been referred back to the court to consider the extent of its powers on such an occasion. Held: The making of an award of costs from central funds might be available in exceptional circumstances. One such circumstance could be where the public were not party to the proceedings. Here, it was argued that he would be denied justice unless the court construed its own powers widely enough, and the human rights law required him to have legal assistance of his own choosing. Minelli could not be read so far. In the light of Holden, the court could not read section 13 so widely, and a costs order could not be made.
Administration of Justice Act 1960 13(3) - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites


 
GlaxoSmithKline Export Ltd v UK (Aid) Ltd Times, 05 June 2003; Gazette, 10 July 2003
15 May 2003
ChD
Blackburne
Costs, Insolvency
The ordinary principle that costs followed the event in contested winding up proceedings where the petition was unsuccessful was subject to exceptions. Here, the company had launched the winding up proceedings in full knowledge of the facts which would be asserted by the company in its defence. It had adopted a high risk strategy. Applying Fernforest, no exceptional circumstances existed in this case.
1 Cites


 
Sharratt v London Central Bus Co (Accident Group Test Cases Tranche 2) [2003] EWHC 9020 (Costs)
15 May 2003
SCCO

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Banchio v Lai [2003] EWHC 9038 (Costs)
16 May 2003
scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Mary Abrew v Tesco Stores Limited [2003] EWHC 9003 (Costs)
16 May 2003
SCCO
Master Rogers, Costs Judge
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
GKN Westland Helicopters Ltd and Another v Korean Air Lines Co Ltd; Press Tech Controls Ltd v Same Times, 11 June 2003; [2003] EWHC 1120 (COMM)
19 May 2003
Comm
Morison J
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The sum accepted as a payment in, in an air carriage case was capable of being the 'amount of damages' awarded under the convention. That it exceeded the amount offered in settlement negotiations meant that the rights to costs under article 22.4 disappeared, but costs could still be awarded under CPR 44.12(1)(b).
Warsaw Convention 22.4 - Civil Procedure Rules 44.12(1)(b)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
DK, KR, CGE, DHM, PS, RM, DJ, GOM v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Royal and Sun Alliance PLC [2003] EWCA Civ 782
22 May 2003
CA
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Mantell
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs

Civil Procedure Rules 36
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hollins v Russell etc [2003] EWCA Civ 718; Times, 10 June 2003; Gazette, 17 July 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 2487
22 May 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lady Justice Hale Lady Justice Arden
Costs, Legal Professions
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement. Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the CFA, as a matter of fairness she should ordinarily be put to her election under the Pamplin procedure. The legislation should be given a purposive construction. Parliament did not mean to make unenforceable a CFA which met the requirements to safeguard justice, protect the client, and acknowledge the interests of other parties. The other party has no legitimate interest in avoiding his obligations by seizing on an apparent breach which is immaterial in the context of the other two purposes of the statutory regulation. It should become normal practice for a CFA to be disclosed for the purpose of costs proceedings in which a success fee is claimed. If the CFA contains confidential information relating to other proceedings, it may be suitably redacted before disclosure takes place. Attendance notes and other correspondence should not ordinarily be disclosed, but the judge conducting the assessment may require the disclosure of material of this kind if a genuine issue is raised.
The indemnity principle is now recognised by Parliament: "This common law principle, by which a paying party cannot be ordered to pay a receiving party more by way of costs than the receiving party is himself liable to pay, is now enshrined in statute, so far as solicitors are concerned, by section 60(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974, which provides:
"A client shall not be entitled to recover from any other person under an order for the payment of any costs to which a contentious business agreement relates more than the amount payable by him to his solicitor in respect of those costs under the agreement."
24. In 1999 Parliament showed itself well aware of the possible application of the indemnity principle in the context of the reforms it introduced in the 1999 Act, because by section 31 it provided:
"'In section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (costs) in subsection (2) (rules regulating matters relating to costs) insert at the end 'or for securing that the amount awarded to a party in respect of the costs to be paid by him to such representatives is not limited to what would have been payable by him to them if he had not been awarded costs'.
This section, however, has not yet been brought into force. (It will be noticed that these two sections state the principle in different ways, but that need not concern us for the purposes of these appeals.)"
Access to Justice Act 1999 27 - Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 30
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Liubov Ford v Richard Labrador [2003] UKPC 41; Times, 05 June 2003; Gazette, 10 July 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 2082
22 May 2003
PC
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Philip Otton
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice, Human Rights, Costs, Natural Justice
(Gibraltar) The appellant had failed in an action for defamation, she had been ordered to pay costs as a condition of her continuing the action. Held: The order was made by the Chief Justice sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal in an appeal which had been taken against a decision which he himself had made when sitting in the Supreme Court at first instance. That was insupportable. She had not been informed of the hearing of the taxation of the costs she was now asked to pay. Those costs were disproportionate to the matter before the court. The European Convention has not been incorporated into the domestic law of Gibraltar and the decisions of the European Court are not strictly binding on the courts of Gibraltar, but they are rightly treated, where pertinent, as persuasive.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Tara Lee Smith v Havering Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 9002 (Costs)
30 May 2003
SCCO
Master Wright, Costs Judge
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Musa King v Telegraph Group Limited [2003] EWHC 1312 (QB)
9 Jun 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Defamation, Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dearling v Foregate Developments (Chester) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 913
9 Jun 2003
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Ali Reza-Delta Transport Co Ltd v United Arab Shipping Co Sag [2003] EWCA Civ 811; Times, 04 July 2003; Gazette, 11 September 2003
17 Jun 2003
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr. Justice Nelson
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The case had concluded. Offers of settlement had been made and the operative one included an offer on the interest payable. The court came to decide how the interest part of the offer was to be considered when assessing whether the judgment bettered the offer. It was noted that an offer on costs was to be disregarded, and it was claimed that in contradistinction, an offer relating to interest related to a central part of the matter judged. Held: The Appellants only offered to accept what they were claiming, and the offer of a concession on the interest uplift was irrelevant. Concessions as to uplift interest should also be left out of account as for costs.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.21
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Wandsworth v Keeffe [2003] EWHC 1629 (Admin)
19 Jun 2003
Admn

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Yenula Properties Ltd v Naidu [2003] EWHC 9009 (Costs)
20 Jun 2003
SCCo

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 889
24 Jun 2003
CA
Waller LJ
Contract, Costs
It had been argued by the claimant in written submissions (although not maintained orally) that an order for payment of pre-judgment interest on costs should never be made. As to an award of interest on costs:- "In any event in principle there seems no reason why the Court should not do so where a party has had to put up money paying its solicitors and been out of the use of that money in the meanwhile." It was ordered that the award of interest should run as from the date or dates of solicitors' invoices.
The defendants had argued for a rate of interest of 6% per annum to reflect the fact that they would have had to pay 2% over base rate if they had borrowed the money from their bank. Waller LJ answered: "The question is whether the evidence in this case demonstrates that a rate greater than 1% above base rate should be applied. Evidence of what a bank might have charged if money had been borrowed is not we think sufficient. It is not clear to us what takes Blackburn outside the norm to which the 1% above base rate presumption applies. In our view the appropriate course in relation to these costs is to make an award of interest at 1% over base rate the interest to run from the date when the costs were paid."
Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(6)(g)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd [2004] EWHC 90022 (Costs)
24 Jun 2003
SCCO

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hollins v Russell [2003] EWCA Civ 974; [2003] 1 WLR 2487; [2003] 3 Costs LR 423; [2003] 4 All ER 590
25 Jun 2003
CA
Brooke, Hale, Arden LJJ
Costs
The court considered whether a successful party should be refused his costs to the extent of the costs associated with a particular argument they had lost. Held. In a weighty matter the court should not disallow the costs of arguments which failed unless points were unreasonably taken.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Feasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and others [2003] EWCA Civ 1106
26 Jun 2003
CA

Insurance, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Kury v Maidstone Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 1726 (Admin)
26 Jun 2003
Admn

Criminal Practice, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Mear, Regina (on the Application Of) v Cambridgeshire County Council [2003] EWHC 1861 (Admin)
1 Jul 2003
Admn

Land, Local Government, Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Fitzhugh Gates (A Firm) v Claudia Louise Elaine Borden Sherman; CA 1-Jul-2003 - A3/2002/2244; Gazette, 17 July 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 886
 
Shanks, Regina (on the Application Of) v North Tyneside Council [2003] EWHC 1900 (Admin)
3 Jul 2003
Admn

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Dooley v Parker [2003] EWHC 9029 (Costs)
5 Jul 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Partridge and others v Lawrence and others [2003] EWCA Civ 1122
8 Jul 2003
CA

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Agrimex Ltd v Tradigrain Sa and others [2003] EWHC 1656 (Comm); Times, 12 August 2003
9 Jul 2003
ComC
The Honourable Mr Justice Thomas
Arbitration, Costs
Challenge was brought against the fees charged by the arbitrator, and in particular at the cost of the arbitrator bringing in a legally qualified draftsman. Held: A draftsman's task would not be himself to refine the arbitrator's reasoning, but rather to express it as exactly as was necessary for the case. Such an appointment would be unnecessary in most cases, and particularly where the amount at issue was not great, but could apply where the issues were complex, although an assessor might be more appropriate. Antagonism and a legalistic approach would not of itself justify such an appointment, though the attitude of the parties in general could be taken into account. Old cases were not useful in such a context. The court would not say that the appointment was wrong, but the costs incurred were quite disproportionate and reduced accordingly.
Arbitration Act 1996 28(2) 28(3)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer and Sons Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 939; Gazette, 18 September 2003
11 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Chadwick
Costs
A copyright infringement case had been settled, but the court was to quantify and apportion costs. Some £700,000 having been spent when the damages amounted to £10,000. Held: Denne did not oust the court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal. It is not open to the appellant to complain that the judge set out to do what both parties had asked him to do – that is to say, to make an order about costs and to decide what order to make on the material before him and without determining disputed facts. It was difficult to see what other approach (than a broad brush approach) could have been pursued by the judge. In every case, the first question for the court was whether it could make an order about costs under the rule, in the absence of agreed or adjudicated facts on which to decide the question.
Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wills and others v the Crown Estate Commissioners [2003] EWHC 9039 (Costs)
14 Jul 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Vernon-Kell v Clinch and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 1196
14 Jul 2003
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Robin Lionel Wills, John Keith Wykeham Marr, Eileen Patricia Marr, Roderick Alistair Burden, Wolsley House Flats Limited v the Crown Estate Commissioners, George Dennis Barrett, Susan Jane Barrett, Paul Walker [2003] EWHC 1718 (Ch)
14 Jul 2003
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Adoko v Office for the Supervision of Solicitors [2003] EWHC 1899 (Admin)
15 Jul 2003
Admn
Lord Justice Dyson, Mr Justice Gibbs
Legal Professions, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The applicant had been made subject of an order preventing his employment as a clerk by any firm of solicitors. A costs order accompanied that order. The order was later the subject of a default costs certificate. He sought to appeal that certificate. Held: The correct and only way to challenge such an order was application under CPR47.12. In any event there was required to be shown evidence demonstrating "a good reason why detailed assessment proceedings should continue" (CPR47.12(2)). No such reason was adduced. An appeal was not a possible route of challenge. Appeal dismissed.
Civil Procedure Rules 47.12
[ Bailii ]
 
Free and others v British Steel Plc and Another [2003] ScotCS 205
18 Jul 2003
ScS
Lord Mackay Of Drumadoon
Costs
The pursuer had sought damages from the defender, but failed to submit the claim for expenses. The defenders said they were prejudiced by the delay. Held: Comparing the prejudice the pursuers would suffer, were the motion to be refused, with that which the defenders will face, if the motion is granted, I am satisfied that I should exercise my discretion in favour of the pursuers and grant the motion.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Sukul-Lennard v Croydon Primary Care Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1193
22 Jul 2003
CA

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Abacha and Another v Compagnie Noga D'Importantion Et D'Exportation Sa [2003] EWCA Civ 1101
23 Jul 2003
CA

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Contract Facilities Ltd v Estate of Rees and others [2003] EWCA Civ 1105
24 Jul 2003
CA

Litigation Practice, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, Regina (on the Application Of) v National Assembly for Wales and Another [2003] EWHC 2105 (Admin)
24 Jul 2003
Admn

Planning, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Brennan v Kettell and others [2003] EWCA Civ 1185
25 Jul 2003
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Alpacas Ltd. v Wilsey (T/A Blackmore Valealpacas) [2003] EWHC 9017 (Costs)
25 Jul 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Norris v Norris, Haskins v Haskins [2003] EWCA Civ 1084; Times, 26 August 2003
28 Jul 2003
CA
Dame Butler Sloss, Thorpe and Mantell LJJ
Family, Costs
The court considered how orders for costs were to be made in 'big money' cases. Held: There were two sets of rules. Cases should be considered by first applying the Civil Procedure Rules. This would allow the court to consider the full range of circumstances of each case. The court required a full discretion, and that should be retained. When looking at Calderbank offers, the court could make fuller use of the provisions of the 1999 Rules, GW -v- RW needs rethinking, and the rules should be amended.
Family Proceedings (Amendment No 2) Rules 1999 (1999 No 3491) 2.69B - Civil Procedure Rules 44.3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rugby Mansions Ltd v Ortwein [2003] EWHC 9041 (Costs)
28 Jul 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Jim Ennis Construction Ltd and others v Thewlis [2003] EWCA Civ 1273
29 Jul 2003
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Valentine v Alan and others [2003] EWHC 9043 (Costs)
29 Jul 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Sharratt v London Central Bus Co and Other Cases [2003] EWHC 9004 (Costs)
30 Jul 2003
SCCO
Senior Costs Judge Hurst
Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Robin Lionel Wills, John Keith Wykeham Marr, Eileen Patricia Marr, Roderick Alistair Burden, Wolsley House Flats Limited v the Crown Estate Commissioners, George Dennis Barrett, Susan Jane Barrett, Paul Walker [2003] EWHC 1952 (Ch)
30 Jul 2003
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Dempsey v Johnstone [2003] EWHC 9044 (Costs)
30 Jul 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Dempsey v Johnstone [2003] EWCA Civ 1134; [2004] 1 Costs LR 41; [2004] PNLR 2
30 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Latham
Costs, Legal Professions
The solicitors appealed against a wasted costs order.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Cantor Fitzgerald v Tradition (Uk) Ltd [2003] EWHC 9040 (Costs)
31 Jul 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Cantor Fitzgerald International (formerly Cantor Fitzgerald (UK) Ltd) and Another v Tradition (UK) Ltd and Others (No 2) Times, 11 September 2003; Gazette, 16 October 2003
31 Jul 2003
ChD
Patten J
Costs, Legal Professions
The costs order required payment of the claimants' costs. The court ordered costs to be payable only for certain stages of the case, and in particular that the appellants should pay the respondents costs of the trial commencing on a specified date. The respondents now sought recovery of brief fees for the trial. Held: The court had to interpret 'costs of the trial'. That might normally include the brief fee, but it had to be seen in the particular circumstances. Where brief fees were paid prior to trial they became costs incurred as and when they were paid and would be assessed on that basis.
1 Cites


 
Lavery v HM Inspector of Taxes [2003] UKSC SPC00375
31 Jul 2003
SCIT

Taxes Management, Costs
SCIT COSTS - Appellant's appeal listed before General Commissioners in 1997 - Inland Revenue identified the Appellant's appeal as a lead case and requested that jurisdiction be transferred to the Special Commissioners - meanwhile appeals of other taxpayers heard by General Commissioners from which Inland Revenue appealed to the High Court - whether the Respondent behaved "wholly unreasonably" in connection with the hearing before the Special Commissioners - no - application dismissed - Special Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994 SI 1994 No. 1811 Reg 21(1)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Mike Kiernans Beer Tent Co Ltd (T/A Fish and Duck) v Customs and Excise; VDT 9-Sep-2003 - [2003] UKVAT V18310
 
K (A Child), Re [2003] EWCA Civ 1410
16 Sep 2003
CA

Costs, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Papera Traders Co Ltd and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd. and Another [2003] EWHC 9018 (Costs)
17 Sep 2003
SCCO

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Papera Traders Co Ltd and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd. and Another [2004] EWHC 9003 (Costs)
17 Sep 2003
SCCO

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
N G Bailey and Co Ltd v AMEC Design and Management Ltd [2003] EWHC 9012 (Costs)
6 Oct 2003
SCCO
Master Rogers , Costs Judge
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Bowcott v Walding [2003] EWHC 9042 (Costs)
14 Oct 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Mount Cook Land Ltd and Another v Westminster City Council; CA 14-Oct-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 1346; Times, 16 October 2003; [2004] 2 PandCR 22; [2004] 1 PLR 29
 
Jemma Trust Ltd v Liptrott and Forrester [2003] EWHC 9045 (Costs)
24 Oct 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Peter D'Arcy Liptrott, John Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis [2003] EWCA Civ 1476; Times, 30 October 2003
24 Oct 2003
CA
Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Longmore
Costs, Legal Professions, Wills and Probate
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate. Held: Despite advances in time recording, "we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate for solicitors to make a separate charge based on value, provided always that one remembers that the solicitor is entitled only to what is fair and reasonable remuneration, taking all relevant factors into account. " There are significant differences in the circumstances in which charges are made for contentious and non-contentious business and the approach to such charges can properly differ even though similar factors apply. It can be of assistance to clients to budget, to substitute an element of a value charge for uncertainty deriving from purely time based costs. Any scale should be regressive. The ultimate safeguard remains the costs judge's duty to allow only such costs as are fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Solicitors Act 1974 56 - The Solicitors (Non-Contentious Business) Remuneration Order 1994
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Akhter and Another (Woodbine Villa) v NCSC (Costs Application) [2002] EWCST 116(NC)
27 Oct 2003
CST

Health Professions, Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Simons Construction Limited v Aardvark Developments Limited; TCC 29-Oct-2003 - [2003] EWHC 2474 (TCC); [2004] BLR 117
 
Thornley v Lang [2003] EWCA Civ 1484; Times, 31 October 2003; [2004] 1 Costs LR 91; [2004] 1 All ER 886; [2004] 1 WLR 378
29 Oct 2003
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Tuckey, Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers MR
Personal Injury, Costs
The claimant had pursued the case under a collective conditional fee agreement, organised by her trade union. The defendant challenged an order for payment of the costs, arguing that under the indemnity principle, the claimant would be under no duty to pay costs, and that therefore there he was denied her claim by the indemnity principle. Held: The claimant was under a duty to pay his legal costs, and therefore could recover his costs even against the indemnity principle. The agreement with the lawyers was a collective conditional fee agreement and therefore not covered by the main Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations.
Lord Phillips MR referred to cases where litigants are funded by third parties such as trade unions: "When defeated by such a litigant, unsuccessful parties have, on occasion, invoked the indemnity principle in an attempt to avoid paying costs. The argument advanced has been that the successful litigant is not liable for his costs and, therefore, has no right to recover them. The courts have had no truck with such arguments. They have defeated them by finding that, in the circumstances under consideration, the litigant comes under an independent obligation, albeit one that is unlikely to be enforced, to pay the fees of the solicitor who is acting for him"
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58 - Collective Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 (2000 No 2988) - Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 (2000 No 692)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ablaise Ltd v Nettec Plc and Another [2003] EWHC 3121 (Ch)
30 Oct 2003
ChD
Laddie J
Costs
Application for security for costs.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mclean and Another v Woolf and others [2003] EWHC 9046 (Costs)
2 Nov 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Seamus Gavin, Regina (on the Application Of) v Wolseley Centres Limited [2003] EWHC 2818 (Admin)
5 Nov 2003
Admn

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin [2003] EWHC 2606 (Comm)
6 Nov 2003
ComC
Tomlinson J
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Ronald, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames [2003] EWHC 2776 (Admin)
7 Nov 2003
Admn

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Koshy v Deg-Deutsche Investitions - Undentwicklungs Gesellschaft Gmbh [2003] EWCA Civ 1718
24 Nov 2003
CA
Lady Justice Hale Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Carnwath
Litigation Practice, Costs
One party had been ordered to pay the costs of an unsuccessful attempt to discharge injunctions and strike out the action. The applications failed (badly) and the costs were ordered to be taxed and paid forthwith. Later there was a trial, and the previously unsuccessful party succeeded. That party then sought to appeal the original costs judgment out of time. The application failed. Held. Mummery LJ observed: "The unusual feature of the case is that a successful defendant seeks, after final judgment in the action, to set aside and reverse on appeal an interlocutory order made before trial. I do not say that this is impossible in principle, but it is certainly a most unusual form of appeal in practice. In most cases interlocutory orders made in the course of proceedings cease to have any independent practical significance after the proceedings have been tried and final judgment entered. A court would not normally entertain an appeal after final judgment, attempting to reopen a costs order made inter partes at an interlocutory stage on the ground that the facts as found by the trial judge were different from what they were alleged to be at the date of the interlocutory order." and " I have reached the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed, though with some hesitation, as I do not regard the result as entirely fair or satisfactory.
" I start from the position that this is in substance an attempt, after the trial is over and in the light of the results of the trial and the findings made at it, to re-litigate an interlocutory costs order. No court, whether on an application to set aside at first instance or by way of appeal, is receptive to such an application. It is bound to be a difficult exercise for the court to review the exercise of a discretion made at an early stage where not all the evidence is available or all the facts known or even all the issues identified. As for the parties, more time will be taken up and additional costs incurred.
Harman J had exercised his discretion on the costs of the hearing to set aside freezing orders by taking into account all the circumstances of the applications. The court would not normally interfere with his discretion on costs unless it could be demonstrated that he had taken a wrong approach to the exercise of his discretion or had made an order which was plainly wrong.
This court is being asked to interfere with the exercise of his discretion on a very different basis. It is not being asked to look at all the circumstances in which he exercised his discretion or at his approach or at the result at the time of the order, but at one circumstance only: namely a comparison between (a) the affidavit evidence placed before Harman J. on the ex parte application for the freezing orders and the applications to set them aside on the issue of DEG obtaining knowledge about the profits made by Lasco and Mr Koshy; and (b) the findings of Rimer J. on that issue at the trial.
. . What this court is being asked to do is to cancel an order for costs, which was made in the exercise of the discretion by having regard to all the circumstances at that time, solely on the basis of what has transpired at the trial on an issue of disputed fact. . . in my judgment, it would be wrong and potentially unfair to DEG in these circumstances for the court to set aside the costs order made by Harman J. If the exercise of discretion is to be reviewed in circumstances of an alleged material non-disclosure with a view to making a different order for costs, it can only be fairly and satisfactorily done in this case by an application at first instance, in which the issues of fact are defined and on which evidence can be adduced by both sides about the circumstances in which the orders were made, including orders for costs."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hill v Bailey Times, 05 January 2004; Gazette, 15 January 2004; [2004] 1 All ER 1210; [2003] EWHC 2835 (Ch); [2004] 1 All ER 1210; [2004] CP Rep 24; [2004] 1 Costs LR 135
25 Nov 2003
ChD
Lightman J
Costs, Legal Aid, Litigation Practice
Costs orders had been made against each party in favour of the other. One was legally aided. Held: Though the legally aided party was entitled to some protection against enforcement of an order for costs, he was not protected against the other party exercising a right of set off under the mutual costs orders. A set-off does not place the person against whom it is asserted under any obligation to pay, but merely reduces the amount that he can recover.
Access to Justice Act 1999 11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hill v Bailey [2003] EWHC 9047 (Costs)
25 Nov 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Smart v East Cheshire NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 2806 (QB)
26 Nov 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Gage
Costs


 
Grimes v Crown Prosecution Service [2003] EWCA Civ 1814
27 Nov 2003
CA
Brooke LJ, Sedley LJ
Criminal Practice, Costs
The CPS sought to enforce a confiscation order made by the Crown Court in proceedings against the claimant's husband. She successfully established that she had been beneficially entitled to a one-half interest in the matrimonial home, and was therefore entitled to half of the proceeds of its sale. She now appealed against refusal of her costs. Held. CPR Part 44 applied to the litigation. The appeal succeeded.
Brooke LJ said: "Mr Pawlak urges that the CPS is not insulated from the general rule about costs orders just because it is a public body, and that the judge's approach was wholly wrong. He drew our attention to some well-known cases, either when judicial review proceedings are brought in the public interest and there is no order as to costs, or when the police have to act for parties to a licensing appeal, when it may very well not be proper for them to be ordered to pay costs when they are performing a public function of providing the court with information. He said that their cases raised different issues.
In my judgment there is great force in Mr Pawlak's submission that the judge set about the exercise of his discretion in the wrong way. This is the second occasion within two weeks when a division of this court of which I have been a member has been concerned with an appeal in which complaint is made about an order for costs made by the judge when it was not apparent that the judge had set about his duties in the structured way set out in CPR 44.3. Of course, there is no need for judges to refer to that rule explicitly, provided that they follow its philosophy. Its philosophy required Wilson J to start with the proposition that the general rule was that the CPS, as the unsuccessful party, should have to pay the costs of the successful party. It would then follow from that that the judge should consider carefully whether there were any of the specific matters listed in CPR 44.3(4) which would take this case out of the ordinary rule and then consider all the circumstances.
It appears to me that the judge embarked on his task from the wrong end, focusing first on the position of the CPS, as a public body, and then seeking to find reasons why Mrs Grimes should displace a general rule that the public body should not have to pay the costs of a successful party in circumstances like these.
In these circumstances, it appears to be one of those cases in which, the judge having set about his task from the wrong end, this court has to exercise its discretion afresh on the materials before it. 21. One starts with the general rule. Mrs Grimes had to come to court. There had been no offer made to her to which the court's attention was drawn which made it unnecessary for her to come to court. When she came to court what she had said on paper in her affidavit was believed by the judge. I entirely understand the contention that it would have been unreasonable for the CPS to concede the totality of her claim in advance: they had their public duties to perform in relation to the need to enforce the confiscation order, and there were oddities about Mrs Grimes' statement, particularly in relation to the reasons why the property was put in her husband's sole name. But that does not, in my judgment, mean that the CPS were entitled to behave, as litigants far too often behaved before the CPR came in, by simply standing back and saying, "We will make no offer at all for the court to consider when it decides what order as to costs is a reasonable one to make. We will simply see you in court.""
Sedley LJ said: "The reason why the judge did not approach the case in this way, as it seems to me, is that he regarded the CPS as having a special litigation position or status. As my Lord has made clear, it does not. What it will have in many cases is an argument on the reasonableness of its stance which derives from the nature of its legal functions and the purpose of confiscation orders. For the rest, and I think contrary to the approach taken by the judge, this proceeding was no different from an interpleader in a judgment creditor's action. The Crown when it comes before the courts of this country does so as a litigant like any other.
. . I do not therefore think it necessary for the CPS to have laid itself open to criticism if it is to be made liable for a successful opponent's costs in a case like the present; and for my part I am willing to accept Miss Barber's doughty defence of the CPS's conduct of the case. But that leaves a simple situation in which two parties, each behaving reasonably, have met in court, where one has lost and ought therefore to expect, other things being equal, to pay the other's costs."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hosking v Michaelides and Another; ChD 28-Nov-2003 - Times, 17 December 2003; Gazette, 22 January 2004
 
Digital Equipment Co Ltd and Others v Bower and Others Times, 29 December 2003; Gazette, 29 January 2004; [2003] EWHC 2895 (Ch); [2004] 1 All ER 577; [2004] 1 WLR 1678
4 Dec 2003
ChD
Laddie J
Insolvency, Costs
The liquidators had lost their legal action, and had been ordered to pay the present claimants their costs. They sought payment out of an insolvency services account in competition with the solicitors for the liquidators. Held: An award of costs was not a payment of 'expenses incurred in the winding up' and therefore the court had no discretion to order payment of the costs out of the fund. London Metallurgical established the primacy of the court order and this had been preserved in the rules, but the rules did not include provision for payment of costs to be paid by the liquidators under a court order.
Insolvency Act 1986 112 156 - Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986 No 1925) 4.218(1) 4.220(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Lagden v O'Connor [2003] UKHL 64; Times, 05 December 2003; [2004] 1 AC 1067; [2004] 1 All ER 277; [2003] 3 WLR 1571; [2004] Lloyd's Rep IR 315; [2004] RTR 24
4 Dec 2003
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Damages, Road Traffic, Costs
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant's parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought payment of the cost of the credit agreement. Held: A negligent driver must take his victim as he finds him. Mr Lagden's claim was, in essence, a claim for the loss of use of his car while it was in the garage undergoing the repairs as a result of the accident. He had no choice but to hire the vehicle, and but to do so on credit. The cost of the credit was recoverable.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Leigh v Michelin Tyre Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1766; Times, 16 December 2003; [2004] 1 WLR 846; [2004] 1 Costs LR 148; [2004] 2 All ER 175; [2004] CP Rep 20
8 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Phillips Master Of The Rolls Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Dyson
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The parties had submitted costs estimates which proved later to be quite inadequate. Held: It was a central principle of the Civil Procedure Rules that costs should be controlled. Solicitors should file costs estimates not only at the allocation questionnaire stage but also at the listing questionnaire. The practice direction was framed in mandatory terms. The court gave guidance as to how costs estimates might be taken into account when making an order for costs. The costs estimates given were a useful yardstick of the reasonableness of the costs claimed. Any substantial difference should be explained, and the absence of an explanation could also indicate unreasonableness. A reliance upon an opponent's low estimate in not offering a settlement was relevant, as also it would be if the case management would have been different.
Civil Procedure Rules 43PD 6.6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Leigh v Michelin Tyre Plc [2003] EWHC 9048 (Costs)
8 Dec 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Currey v Currey; CA 8-Dec-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 1974; Times, 26 November 2004
 
Thompson v Anderson [2003] EWHC 9021 (Costs)
9 Dec 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Hinde v Harbourne and others [2004] EWHC 90023 (Costs)
9 Dec 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Thompson v Anderson [2003] EWHC 9050 (Costs)
9 Dec 2003
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Dar International FEF Co v Aon Ltd Times, 19 December 2003
10 Dec 2003
CA
Mance LJ
Litigation Practice, Costs
There had been at an earlier stage an order requiring security for costs to be provbided. That order had been discharged. The defendant sought to appeal, and for the purposes of that appeal theat the costs order be restored. Held: The court had the power to consider such a re-instatement, for the appeal and for the action below, but one would not be made in this case.
1 Cites


 
Paddick v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2003] EWHC 2991 (QB)
10 Dec 2003
QBD
Tugendhat J
Litigation Practice, Costs
The defendant sought disclosure of full statements used by the claimant . Extracts only had been supplied, and he said they contained private and confidential material. Held: The application failed. The claimant had stated that the balance of the material did not relate to the case, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary that statement was to be accepted. As to the costs of transcribing tape recordings, the court was unable to find convincing direct authority, and made the costs costs in cause.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Torbay Borough Council v News Group Newspapers [2003] EWHC 3086 (Fam)
15 Dec 2003
FD

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Yeshekel Arkin v Borchard Lines Limited Andzim Israel Navigation Company Ltd and others (No 3) [2003] EWHC 3088 (Comm)
16 Dec 2003
QBD
Mr Justice Colman
Commercial, European, Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Groupama Insurance Company Limited v Overseas Partners Re Limited Andaon Limited [2003] EWCA Civ 1846
17 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Latham Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss
Costs
The court overruled the refusal of a trial judge to award any costs at all to a successful defendant in the Commercial Court and substituted an order that it be allowed 90% of its costs of the action (the discount of 10% being attributable to the conduct to which the judge had taken exception).
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Cel Group Ltd v Nedlloyd Lines UK Ltd and Another Times, 02 January 2004
18 Dec 2003
CA
Waller, Hale, Carnwath LJJ
Costs
The defendant sought indemnity costs with interest at an enhanced rate. It had made on offer of settlement which was rejected. CEL objected that the defendant had the benefit of a conditional fee agreement. Held: The conditional fee agreement was as to the solicitors costs, but not for counsel. Costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis. Parties should know where they stood, and whether an earlier offer had been rescinded, but too much should not be expected of a defendant merely trying to maintain the benefit of a judgment it already had, and particularly so in the case of an all or nothing appeal such as this. The conditional fee agreement had no special status at different stages.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina (Geologistics) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Times, 15 January 2004; [2003] EWCA Civ 1877
18 Dec 2003
CA
Thorpe, Waller, Latham LJJ
Insurance, Insolvency, Costs
The claimant had made a claim against an insurance company which was insolvent. The claim had been paid by the Scheme, and he now sought payment by them of the costs of the claim also. Held: The costs were payable. The construction of the sections sought by the appellant was too narrow.
Policyholder (Protection) Act 1975 6(4) 6(5)
1 Cites

1 Citers

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