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: 2004 To: 2004

This page lists 111 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Aaron v Shelton [2004] EWHC 1162 (QB)
2004


Litigation Practice, Costs
A party wishing to raise a matter concerning the conduct of the opposing party, either before or during litigation, was under a duty to raise it before the judge making the costs order, was too broadly stated.
1 Citers


 
Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Costs) [2004] 1 WLR 2657
2004


Criminal Practice, Costs
"Where a person is not tried for an offence for which he has been indicted, or in respect of which proceedings against him have been sent for trial or transferred for trial, or has been acquitted on any count in the indictment, the court may make a defendant's costs order in his favour. Such an order should normally be made whether or not an order for costs between the parties is made, unless there are positive reasons for not doing so. For example, where the defendant's own conduct has brought suspicion on himself and has misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against him was stronger than it was, the defendant can be left to pay his own costs. The court when declining to make a costs order should explain, in open court, that the reason for not making an order does not involve any suggestion that the defendant is guilty of any criminal conduct but the order is refused because of the positive reason that should be identified."
1 Citers


 
C v FC (Children Proceedings: Costs) [2004] 1 FLR 362
2004
FD
Rex Tedd QC
Children, Costs
Practice in the Family Division has departed from the "costs follow the event" principle in significant respects. The court brought together recent cases on this topic.
1 Citers


 
Francis Hoff and others v Mary Atherton [2004] EWHC 2007 (Ch)
2004
ChD
Nicholas Warren QC
Wills and Probate, Costs
A challenge to testamentary capacity falls within the second exception in Spiers v English and not the first.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ortwein v Rugby Mansions Ltd [2004] 1 Costs LR 26
2004

Lloyd J
Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Young v Jr Smart (Builders) Ltd [2004] EWHC 90018 (Costs)
15 Jan 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Rowland v Environment Agency [2004] EWCA Civ 37
22 Jan 2004
CA

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; ChD 23-Jan-2004 - [2004] EWHC 63 (Ch); HCO100644
 
Aujla v Sanghera [2004] EWCA Civ 122
23 Jan 2004
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Melvin v England Palmer (A Firm) [2004] EWHC 90019 (Costs)
27 Jan 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Barrett v Rutt-Field and others [2004] EWHC 9012 (Costs)
29 Jan 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Chappell v De Bora's of Exeter (A Firm) [2004] EWHC 90020 (Costs)
29 Jan 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Jemma Trust Company Ltd. v Liptrott and Another (No.2) [2004] EWHC 9011 (Costs)
2 Feb 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Lynch v Paul Davidson Taylor (A Firm) [2004] EWHC 90021 (Costs)
3 Feb 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Jones (No 2) v Guildford Crown Court [2004] EWHC 131 (Admin)
3 Feb 2004
Admn
Lord Justice Brooke Mr Justice Brooke
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
General Mediterranean Holdings Sa, Nadhmi S Auchi v Dinkha Latchint/A Dinkha Latchin Associates [2004] EWCA Civ 52
6 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Jacob
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Lavelle v Lavelle and others [2004] EWCA Civ 223; Times, 09 March 2004
11 Feb 2004
CA

Trusts, Costs
Property had been purchased in the name of of the appellant by her father. She appealed a finding that the presumption of advancement had been rebutted. Held: The appeal failed. The presumption against advancement had been rebutted on the evidence. The court at first instance should keep a record of why a costs decision was made, particularly where the costs were disproportionate to the values at stake.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others [2004] EWCA Civ 117
13 Feb 2004
CA

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Radcliffes Le Brasseur (A Firm) and Another v Wickes and others [2004] EWHC 9001 (Costs)
16 Feb 2004
Scco

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Burns and others v  Novartis Grimsby Ltd and others [2004] EWHC 9009 (Costs)
16 Feb 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Garratt v Saxby [2004] EWCA Civ 341; Gazette, 18 March 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 2152
18 Feb 2004
CA
Ward, Buxton, Dyson LJJ
Road Traffic, Negligence, Litigation Practice, Costs
There had been a Part 36 offer to settle the action. It was disclosed inadvertently to the judge. Held: There had been no serious procedural irregularity, and fairness and justice did not require a rehearing before different judge.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Anandh, (the Estate of ) and Another v Barnet Primary Health Care Trust and others [2004] EWCA Civ 145
19 Feb 2004
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Duffy v Port Ramsgate Ltd. [2004] EWHC 9008 (Costs)
25 Feb 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Christine Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham [2004] EWCA Civ 207; Times, 10 March 2004; [2004] 3 All ER 543; [2004] 4 Costs LR 545; [2004] 1 WLR 2739; [2004] Inquest LR 96; (2004) 80 BMLR 48
27 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice Longmore
Coroners, Costs
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent. Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position should not generally be expected to pay the costs of an appeal against an order they made where they did not take active steps to resist the appeal. Here an order was appropriate for the appeal, but not the hearing at first instance.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Denton v Denton and Other Times, 14 April 2004
1 Mar 2004
FD

Legal Professions, Costs
The solicitor had written in his client care letter that 'we have agreed that a claim for costs will not be made until money is received at the end of the case'. The client resisted a request to pay counsel's fees. Held: Solicitors should take great care with their client care letters, but the letter should be construed purposively, and it was clear that the solicitor was agreeing only to postpone his own claim for costs.
1 Cites


 
C (a Child) v The Home Office and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2004] EWCA Civ 234; Times, 01 March 2004; Gazette, 01 April 2004
3 Mar 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Sedley
Personal Injury, Costs, Human Rights
The applicant child had incurred legal expenses in applying to the Authority for compensation. The claim was successful, but the applicant was unable to rcover the expenses, and now said that that refusal infringed his human rights, since he would otherwise be unable to pursue such an action. Held: The failure to pay legal expenses was an express part of the scheme. An application was a determination of the applicant's civil rights, but to say that a part of the compensation on account had to be expended to pursue the claim was not a denial of rights. There was no obligation on the scheme to provide for payment of expenses.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ghannouchi v Houni Limited, Ahmed Salhin El-Houni, Al Arab Publishing House Limited [2004] EWHC 9002 (Costs)
4 Mar 2004
SCCO
Berry, Master Seager Berry - Costs Judge
Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v Axa Global Risks (Uk) Ltd and others [2004] EWCA Civ 277; Times, 29 April 2004
10 Mar 2004
CA
Lord Justice Rix Mr Justice Neuberger Lord Justice Tuckey
Costs
The Kastor Too had been lost in a fire. After substantial litigation, the insurers now appealed an order finding a constructive total loss (it was beyond economic repair or recovery). They had said that it was already beyond repair immediately before it sank. The judge had held that where an actual total loss immediately followed a constructive loss, the insured should recover. Held: The insurer's appeal was dismissed, but the court should be careful about adopting too close an analysis of liability for costs. A settlement offer had been made, and the costs order was adjusted to reflect the increased costs incurred by non-acceptance.
Marine Insurance Act 1906 60(2)(ii)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Spencer v Wood [2004] EWHC 90027 (Costs)
15 Mar 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Gulf Azov Shipping Co Ltd and others v Chief Humphrey Irikefe Idisi and others [2004] EWCA Civ 292
15 Mar 2004
CA
Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr
Costs
Appeal against award of costs against person who was not party to the original proceedings.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Stacy v Player [2004] EWCA Civ 241
16 Mar 2004
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Stacey v Player [2004] EWHC 90028 (Costs)
16 Mar 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Payne v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 433
17 Mar 2004
CA

Planning, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Lancashire Constabulary, Regina (on the Application Of) v Reedley Magistrates Court [2004] EWHC 677 (Admin)
19 Mar 2004
Admn

Licensing, Police, Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Tee-Hillman v Heppenstalls (A Firm); SCCO 23-Mar-2004 - [2004] EWHC 90024 (Costs)
 
Bassett v Sears Tooth (A Firm) [2004] EWHC 90014 (Costs)
24 Mar 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Bowen v Bridgend County Borough Council [2004] EWHC 9010 (Costs)
25 Mar 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Marsden v Guide Dogs for the Blind Association [2004] EWHC 90033 (Costs)
25 Mar 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Benaim (UK) Ltd v Middleton and Another; TCC 26-Mar-2004 - [2004] EWHC 737 (TCC)
 
Rezvi, Re the Criminal Justice Act 1988 [2004] EWHC 621 (Admin)
29 Mar 2004
Admn

Criminal Practice, Costs

Criminal Justice Act 1988
[ Bailii ]

 
 XYZ v Schering Health Care: Oral Contraceptive Litigation; SCCO 31-Mar-2004 - [2004] EWHC 90026 (Costs)
 
Stewart and Another v Medway NHS Trust [2004] EWHC 9013 (Costs)
6 Apr 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Metcalfe v Clipston; SCCO 6-Apr-2004 - [2004] EWHC 9005 (Costs)
 
Owens and others v Biffa Waste Services Limited [2004] EWHC 9004 (Costs)
22 Apr 2004
SCCO
Master O'Hare Costs Judge
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Fleming v Sussex Police Force [2004] EWCA Civ 643
4 May 2004
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Wiltshire v Powell and others (Costs) [2004] EWCA Civ 626
7 May 2004
CA
Lord Justice Latham Lady Justice Arden Mr Justice Holman
Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ryan v Dunscrest Ltd. [2004] EWHC 9006 (Costs)
7 May 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc; CA 11-May-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 576; Times, 27 May 2004; Gazette, 03 June 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 3002; [2004] CP Rep 34; [2004] 4 All ER 920; (2005) 81 BMLR 108; [2004] 3 Costs LR 393

 
 Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust and Another v Joy and Another; SCCO 11-May-2004 - [2004] EWHC 90029 (Costs)
 
Smiths Dock Ltd v Edwards [2004] EWHC 90031 (Costs)
13 May 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 King v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust; SCCO 13-May-2004 - [2004] EWHC 9007 (Costs)
 
McPherson v BNP Paribas SA (London Branch) [2004] EWCA Civ 569; Times, 31 May 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 616; [2004] ICR 1398; [2004] 4 Costs LR 596; [2004] 3 All ER 266; [2004] IRLR 558; [2004] EWHC 90034 (Costs); [2004] ICR 1938
14 May 2004
CA
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Thorpe Mr Justice Bennett
Costs, Employment
The claimant withdrew his claim in the Employment Tribunal. By then, his employer had incurred very substantial legal costs. He appealed against the order for costs against him. Held: The tribunal had wrongly asked whether the withdrawal of the case was unreasonable. It should have asked whether the case as a whole was reasonably pursued. It was nevertheless open to the tribunal to find, on the facts, that the proceedings as a whole had been conducted unreasonably.
Mummery LJ stated: "The principal of relevance means that the tribunal must have regard to the nature, gravity and effect of the unreasonable conduct as factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion but that is not the same as requiring [the receiving party] to prove that specific unreasonable conduct by [the paying party] caused particular costs to be incurred".
Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Texuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc [2004] EWHC 1102 (Comm)
17 May 2004
ComC
Gross J
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
Where the court concludes that it may be effectively impossible to enforce an order for payment of costs, then this situation would provide "an objective justification for the court exercising its discretion to make an order for payment of the full amount of the costs likely to be ordered against a claimant if unsuccessful in the litigation".
Civil Procedure Rules 25.13(1)(a) 25.13(2)(a)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Practice Statement (Judicial review: Costs) Times, 20 May 2004
17 May 2004
Admn
Collins J
Judicial Review, Costs
The general rule under the Civil Procedure Rules that when a court order was silent as to costs, no party would be liable for the costs of another party did not apply in applications for leave to proceed on a judicial review. An order made on such an application would carry by implication an order for costs in cause.

 
Musa King v Telegraph Group Ltd Times, 21 May 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 613; [2004] EMLR 429; [2005] 1 WLR 2282; [2004] 3 Costs LR 449; [2004] CP Rep 35; [2004] EMLR 23
18 May 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Kay Lord Justice Johnathan Parker
Defamation, Costs
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation. Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being represented under a conditional fee agreement. The court considered that the amount of costs being incurred served to act as an improper deterrent to defendant publishers, and they should not be held in terrorem by inflated costs agreements. If less claimants pursued cases because lawyers were reluctant to take cases unless they were assessed to to have a much greater than evens chance of success, then that was a price to be paid: "A claimant brings an action like this not only to recover damages but also to vindicate his reputation, but that consideration cannot go too far to bridge the gulf between the value of this action to the Claimant and its value to the lawyers instructed in the case. As I have said, something seems to have gone seriously wrong". (Brooke LJ)
Brooke J also said: “What is in issue in this case, however, is the appropriateness of arrangements whereby a defendant publisher will be required to pay up to twice the reasonable and proportionate costs of the claimant if he loses or concedes liability, and will almost certainly have to bear his own costs (estimated in this case to be about £400,000) if he wins. The obvious unfairness of such a system is bound to have the chilling effect on a newspaper exercising its right to freedom of expression . . and to lead to the danger of self-imposed restraints on publication which he so much feared . . It is not for this court to thwart the wish of Parliament that litigants should be able to bring actions to vindicate their reputations under a CFA, and that they should not be obliged to obtain ATE cover before they do so . . On the other hand, we are obliged to read and give effect to relevant primary and secondary legislation so far as possible in a way that is compatible with a publisher's Article 10 Convention rights . . In my judgment the only way to square the circle is to say that when making any costs capping order the court should prescribe a total amount of recoverable costs which will be inclusive, so far as a CFA-funded party is concerned, of any additional liability. It cannot be just to submit defendants in these cases, where their right to freedom of expression is at stake, to a costs regime where the costs they will have to pay if they lose are neither reasonable nor proportionate and they have no reasonable prospect of recovering their reasonable and proportionate costs if they win.
If this means . . that it will not be open to a CFA-assisted claimant to receive the benefit of an advocate instructed at anything more than a modest fee or to receive the help of a litigation partner in a very expensive firm who is not willing to curtail his fees, then his/her fate will be no different from that of a conventional legally aided litigant in modern times. It is rare these days for such a litigant to be able to secure the services of leading counsel unless the size of the likely award of compensation justifies such an outlay, and defamation litigation does not open the door to awards on that scale today. Similarly, if the introduction of this novel cost-capping regime means that a claimant's lawyers may be reluctant to accept instructions on a CFA basis unless they assess the chances of success as significantly greater than evens (so that the size of the success fee will be to that extent reduced), this in my judgment will be a small price to pay in contrast to the price that is potentially to be paid if the present state of affairs is allowed to continue.”
The court re-iterated the 'conduct rule' in defamation cases: "(1) There is a rule of general application in defamation (dubbed the "repetition rule" by Hirst LJ in Shah) whereby a defendant who has repeated an allegation of a defamatory nature about the claimant can only succeed in justifying it by proving the truth of the underlying allegation – not merely the fact that the allegation has been made;
(2) More specifically, where the nature of the plea is one of "reasonable grounds to suspect", it is necessary to plead (and ultimately prove) the primary facts and matters giving rise to reasonable grounds of suspicion objectively judged;
(3) It is impermissible to plead as a primary fact the proposition that some person or persons (e.g. law enforcement authorities) announced, suspected or believed the claimant to be guilty;
(4) A defendant may (for example, in reliance upon the Civil Evidence Act 1995) adduce hearsay evidence to establish a primary fact – but this in no way undermines the rule that the statements (still less beliefs) of any individual cannot themselves serve as primary facts;
(5) Generally, it is necessary to plead allegations of fact tending to show that it was some conduct on the claimant's part that gave rise to the grounds of suspicion (the so-called "conduct rule").
(6) It was held by this court in Chase . . that this is not an absolute rule, and that for example "strong circumstantial evidence" can itself contribute to reasonable grounds for suspicion.
(7) It is not permitted to rely upon post-publication events in order to establish the existence of reasonable grounds, since (by way of analogy with fair comment) the issue has to be judged as at the time of publication.
(8) A defendant may not confine the issue of reasonable grounds to particular facts of his own choosing, since the issue has to be determined against the overall factual position as it stood at the material time (including any true explanation the claimant may have given for the apparently suspicious circumstances pleaded by the defendant).
(9) Unlike the rule applying in fair comment cases, the defendant may rely upon facts subsisting at the time of publication even if he was unaware of them at that time.
(10) A defendant may not plead particulars in such a way as to have the effect of transferring the burden to the claimant of having to disprove them."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Musa King v Telegraph Group Ltd [2004] EWHC 90030 (Costs); [2004] 3 Costs LR 449
18 May 2004
SCCO

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Accident Group Test Cases; Sharratt v London Central Bus Company and Other Cases [2004] EWCA Civ 575; Gazette, 10 June 2004
20 May 2004
CA
Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice May
Costs, Legal Professions
The Accident Group operated a system whereby they introduced potential claimants to personal injury lawyers, arranging costs insurance for them. They appealed a finding that the payment was made in breach of the 1990 code, and was not recoverable. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The company making the risk assessment operated as agent of the solicitor, but the obligation to pay arose before a solicitor-client relationship was created. It was therefore a referral fee, and irrecoverable.
Access to Justice Act 1999 29 - Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code 1990
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Accident Group Test Cases [2004] EWHC 90032 (Costs)
20 May 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Aaron v Shelton [2004] EWHC 1162 (QB); [2004] 3 All ER 561; [2004] 3 Costs LR 488
24 May 2004
QBD
Jack J
Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Aaron v Shelton [2004] EWHC 90037 (Costs)
24 May 2004
SCCO

Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Aaron v Shelton; SCCO 24-May-2004 - [2004] EWHC 90036 (Costs)
 
Mcpherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) [2004] EWHC 90034 (Costs)
13 Jun 2004
SCCO

Costs, Employment

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jeffrey v Havering Hospitals NHS Trust [2004] EWHC 90015 (Costs)
16 Jun 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Jemma Trust Co Ltd v Liptrott and Forrester (No.2) [2004] EWHC 90035 (Costs)
17 Jun 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott and others [2004] EWHC 1404 (Ch)
17 Jun 2004
ChD

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
G and A Ltd v HNJ Jewelry (Asia) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 938
22 Jun 2004
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Kenneth L Kellar Carib West Limited v Stanley A Williams [2004] UKPC 30; [2005] 4 Costs LR 559; (2004) 148 SJLB 821
24 Jun 2004
PC
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Carswell, Dame Sian Elias
Commonwealth, Legal Professions, Costs
(Turks and Caicos Islands) The appellant had failed in his action but argued that he should not be called upon to pay the costs of the respondent because there had been an unlawful conditional fee agreement. The bill had referred to one factor as the degree of success in the case, and the respondent argued that this showed the existence of a conditional fee element. Held: The letter relied upon did not establish what was suggested, and nor could the fact that the remuneration rate had not been formally agreed in advance. It was not unlawful as a conditional fee arrangement. The case was remitted for taxation to proceed.
The Privy Council expressed the view that "it may now be time to reconsider the accepted prohibition in the light of modern practising conditions."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
In Re Cabletel Installations Ltd [2005] BPIR 28
1 Jul 2004

Chief Registrar Baister
Insolvency, Costs
The court criticised the remuneration claimed by the insolvency office-holder were work had been carried out at too senior a level, and the calculation was an uncritical application of the time spent, and where there were more and lengthier meetings and excessive reviews than the administration warranted. Chief Registrar Baister set out the approach he would adopt to fixing the applicant administrators' remuneration: "I shall examine the main work streams and some of their subcategories and consider the time spent and whether it was justified; I shall have regard, insofar as I can, to the level at which work has been done; I shall consider the benefit of the work done and, to any extent appropriate, whether it was necessary. I shall then look at the larger picture and consider the case in terms of value. In doing so I shall have regard to the factors set out in the rules and to other factors peculiar to this case. I shall bear in mind that time spent is a measure not of the value of the service rendered but of the cost of rendering it. I do not propose, therefore, to allow myself to be influenced to any real extent by the final figures which the administrators claim, since, it seems to me that, prima facie, they reflect the cost of time rather than the value of the service provided. I shall resolve any doubts I have against the administrators."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Crown Resources Ag v Sumitomo Corporation (Singapore) [2004] EWHC 1670 (Comm)
13 Jul 2004
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Morison
Costs, Legal Professions
Request for wasted costs order
[ Bailii ]
 
Poccia v Toussiant [2004] EWHC 90016 (Costs)
13 Jul 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs.Com Ltd [2004] EWCA (Civ) 887; Times, 16 July 2004; [2005] FSR 3; [2004] 1 WLR 3026; [2004] 4 All ER 942; [2005] CP Rep 4; (2004) 27(7) IPD 27067; [2004] 4 Costs LR 662; (2005) 81 BMLR 108; [2004] 3 Costs LR 393
14 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Jacob
Costs, Litigation Practice
After successfully appealing, the defendant claimant argued for a substantial part of its costs, saying that the defendant had unreasonably refused ADR. To pursue this, it now sought disclosure of the details of the without prejudice negotiations between them. Held: No distinction is to be made between party-to-party negotiations and negotiations conducted within a mediation: both are to be treated as subject to the without prejudice rule. Negotiations protected by a general Without Prejudice agreement should not be used at any point, even on issues of costs: "the rule in Walker v Wilshire remains good law and that the Court cannot order disclosure of "without prejudice" negotiations against the wishes of one of the parties to those negotiations. This may (indeed does) mean that in some cases the Court when it comes to the question of costs cannot decide whether one side or the other was unreasonable in refusing mediation. "
Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
United Tyre Company Ltd v Born [2004] EWCA Civ 1236
16 Jul 2004
CA

Arbitration, Costs

Arbitration Act 1996 23
[ Bailii ]
 
Abu v MGN Ltd [2004] EWHC 90017 (Costs)
19 Jul 2004
SCCO

Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd and others (No. 2); PC 21-Jul-2004 - [2004] UKPC 39; [2004] 1 WLR 2807
 
Blackham v Entrepose UK [2004] EWCA Civ 1109; Times, 28 September 2004
27 Jul 2004
CA

Personal Injury, Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The claimant had succeeded in his claim for damages for personal injuries, but there had been a payment in. There were cross appeals, as to the proportion of costs awarded, and by the defendant saying that the interest awarded should have been added to award before testing whether the payment had been beaten. Held: The court should first examine what the payment in was expressed to represent and then consider whether the amount for which he has directed judgment to be entered, as compared with that payment, is less than that amount. Had the court done so, the award would not have bettered the payment in, and the costs award would be different. Appeal allowed. Cross appeal dismissed.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.20
[ Bailii ]
 
Brighton and Hove City Council, Regina (on the Application Of) v Brighton and Hove Justices [2004] EWHC 1980 (Admin)
29 Jul 2004
Admn

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Chinwe Cordelia Gil v Baygreen Properties Limited (In Liquidation), Stelios Ippocratous, Andreas Kakouris (Liquidator of Refined Properties Limited), the Inland Revenue, John William Lupson, Peter George Lupson [2004] EWHC 2029 (Ch); [2005] 1 Costs LR 75
19 Aug 2004
ChD
Mr Nicholas Davidson Qc
Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Affymetrix Inc and Another v Multilyte Ltd [2004] EWHC 2316 (Ch)
31 Aug 2004
ChD

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Cafane v London Borough of Lambeth [2004] EWHC 90042 (Costs)
9 Sep 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]

 
 Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 16-Sep-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 1239
 
Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1296
22 Sep 2004
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas v The Financial Services Authority [2004] UKFSM FSM010
22 Sep 2004
FSMT

Financial Services, Costs
FSMT REASONS FOR DIRECTIONS - application for a costs order in respect of the previous hearing - allowed in part application for a direction that certain questions be detennined at a preliminary hearing - allowed in part application for directions requiring the Respondent to provide further infonnation and to file further documents and for associated directions - dismissed - Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Sch 13 para 13 - Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001 SI2001 No. 2476 Rules 10(1)(/) and (g); 13(1); and 21
[ Bailii ]
 
Vodafone Ltd v GNT Holdings (Uk) Ltd and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1242
24 Sep 2004
CA
Potter LJ
Costs
Application for payment of costs ordered and security for costs of appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Settelen and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2004] EWHC 2171 (Ch)
29 Sep 2004
ChD
Peter Smith J
Police, Costs
The claimants had made application for tapes held by the respondent to be released. The claimant offered undertakings as to their preservation, and agreement had been reached. The outstanding issue was as to costs. The tapes were recorded by the claimant of the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Held: To justify retention of a document, or property, it must be necessary in all the circumstances. Had the police been open in their dealings it could have been dealt with more quickly. Despite court orders the tape had been copied whilst in the possession of the police, and it was not for them now to assert that they would keep it more securely. They should pay the costs.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 19 22
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Grosvenor v High-Point Rendel Group Plc (Costs) [2004] EWHC 3057 (TCC)
30 Sep 2004
TCC

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Raja v Van Hoogstraten [2004] EWCA Civ 1391
30 Sep 2004
CA

Torts - Other, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Lakhani v Eversheds [2004] EWHC 90040 (Costs)
6 Oct 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Powerhouse Retail Ltd. and others v Seeboard Retail Plc and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1310
7 Oct 2004
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Ross v Stonewood Securities Ltd [2004] EWHC 2235 (Ch)
7 Oct 2004
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Costs, Insolvency
The claimant appealed an order reducing his award of costs.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Holland and Another v PKF (A Firm) and others [2004] EWHC 9043 (Costs)
11 Oct 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Day, Regina (on the Application of) v Waltham Forest [2004] EWHC 2375 (Admin)
12 Oct 2004
Admn

Housing, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Crouch v King's Healthcare NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 1332
15 Oct 2004
CA
Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Mance And Sir Christopher Staughton
Professional Negligence, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The defendants sought approval of their practice of making a written offer to the claimants rather than making a payment into court. The offer had been accepted but only after the defendant had purported to withdraw it. Held: 'it certainly is not open to any defendant to decree unilaterally that where a money claim is being made against it, it will not make a payment into court but will make a written offer on the basis that Part 36 will apply as though he had made a payment into court. ' in making the decision, the judge had been exercising a discretion, and that exercise should not be disturbed.
Civil Procedure Rules 836 44
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Sonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [2004] EWCA Civ 1342; Times, 20 October 2004
15 Oct 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Carnwath The Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)
Costs, Legal Aid
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent's planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The two regimes differed as to the limits applied to sums recoverable from the Legal Service Commission. The judge made an order for assessment of the council's costs of the substantive hearing and directed that they should be set off against the claimant's costs of the permission application. Held: The appeal was not to be allowed, and the authority could set off its claim. Though an order had been made in favour of the claimant at one stage, the defendants could set off the later order. The result was noted by the court as disturbing because of the adverse effect it might have on an already unprofitable area of practice.
Community Legal Services (Costs) Regulations 2000
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis), Papadimitriou v Symes (A Bankrupt) Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership) Jean-Louis Domercq [2004] EWHC 2330 (Ch); [2005] 2 Costs LR 224; [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 538; [2005] CP Rep 12; [2005] 4 All ER 519; [2005] 1 WLR 2043; (2005) 83 BMLR 115
20 Oct 2004
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Litigation Practice, Costs, Legal Professions
Dr Zamar had given expert evidence in the principal proceedings. It was now said that that evidence had not been given in the proper way, and a remedy was now sought.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis), Papadimitriou v Symes (A Bankrupt) Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership) Jean-Louis Domercq etc [2004] EWHC 2329 (Ch)
20 Oct 2004
ChD
Mr Justice Smith
Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cairns v The Chief Constable Strathclyde Police [2004] ScotCS 235
22 Oct 2004
OHCS
Lord Kirkwood And Lord Maclean And Sir David Edward
Costs
Motion to ordain the appellant to find caution in the sum of £15,000 in respect of the expenses of the present appeal. The appellant is an undischarged bankrupt and it is not in dispute that the normal rule is that a pursuer who is an undischarged bankrupt should be required to find caution unless there are exceptional circumstances which lead the court, in the exercise of its discretion
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Hickmott, Regina (on the Application Of) v Brighton and Hove Council and Another [2004] EWHC 2474 (Admin)
8 Nov 2004
Admn

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Botham v Niazi [2004] EWHC 2602 (QB); [2005] 2 Costs LR 259
12 Nov 2004
QBD
Richards J
Defamation, Costs
Application was made for the assessment of costs in an action but only after a very long delay.
[ Bailii ]
 
In Newman Ltd v Adlem [2004] EWCA Civ 1492
16 Nov 2004
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Carvill v HM Inspector of Taxes [2004] UKSC SPC00447
29 Nov 2004
SCIT

Income Tax, Costs
SCIT COSTS - Special Commissioners' power to award costs - Revenue withdrew opposition to appeal shortly before hearing - Appellant claimed costs of proceedings while matter was before Special Commissioners - Matter had been before Special Commissioners for nearly four years - Whether costs claimed by Appellant were costs "of and incidental to a hearing" - Yes - Whether Revenue had acted wholly unreasonably in connection with hearing - Yes - Special Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994, SI 1994/1811, reg 21(1)
Special Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994 21(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Fengate Developments v Customs and Excise [2004] EWCA Civ 1650
1 Dec 2004
CA

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Read v Edmed Times, 13 December 2004
8 Dec 2004
QBD
Bell J
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant had offered to accept damages subject to a 50% finding of contributory negligence. The defendant did not accept. That was the exact order made. The claimant appealed refusal to award her costs on the standard basis to the time for acceptance of the offer and thereafter on an indemnity basis. Held: The judge had doubted his order and asked counsel to return on the following day to consider the issue. Neither counsel could explain why the CPR should exclude an award equal to the offer. The rules should encourage appropriate offers. The court exercised its discretion and awarded costs on a standard basis up to 28 days after the claimants offer, and thereafter on an indemnity basis, together with interest on the indemnity costs.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.21
1 Cites


 
Kundrath v Kwatia and Another [2004] EWHC 2852 (QB)
9 Dec 2004
QBD

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Challinor v Challinor [2004] EWCA Civ 1674
10 Dec 2004
CA
Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice Wall
Family, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Richmond, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2004] EWHC 3206 (Admin)
14 Dec 2004
Admn
Forbes J
Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Aisbitt v Conrathe and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1753
14 Dec 2004
CA

Legal Professions, Damages, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others [2004] EWHC 2908 (Ch); Times, 03 January 2005
14 Dec 2004
ChD
Lightman J
Land, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants. Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to have been able to establish whether it was proper to resist the application had survived the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules (44.3(2)(b)). The circumstances justifying the rule were still applicable. It was reasonable also for the defendants to have had separate representation, and each was entitled to the appropriate costs. There had been a potential conflict of interest.
Law of Property Act 1925 84(20 - Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(2)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1703; Times, 12 January 2005; [2005] FSR 24; [2005] 2 Costs LR 293
16 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Jacob
Intellectual Property, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
Following its earlier main judgment in the case, the court made use of the CPR to award costs on an appeal. The overall result had been that the patent was found to be valid but not infringed. There had been huge costs. Smithkline sought costs on an indemnity basis, saying the court had certified the patent valid at first instance, and that the appeal was a subsequent proceeding when indemnity costs ought to be ordered under the 1977 Act. Apotex said that the appeal was part of the same proceedings. That was correct. Nevertheless the CPR also applied, and the court used rule 44.3 to take the costs questions on an issue by issue basis.
Patents Act 1977 65 - Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Atack v Lee and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1712; Times, 28 December 2004; [2005] 1 WLR 2643
16 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Mance
Personal Injury, Costs
Defendant insurers had challenged conditional fee agreements involving a two stage success fee. Both cases took place before limitations were introduced by Callery v Gray. Held: It would be wrong to apply Callery v Gray retrospectively. A two stage conditional success fee was to be encouraged. The success fee might properly be raised to up to 100% where a claim did not settle within the protocol period. However in each case the judge had used his discretion properly to assess the risk exposure in the light of knowledge available at the time. The appeals failed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rotary Watches Ltd. v Rotary Watches (Usa) Inc [2004] EWHC 90038 (Costs)
17 Dec 2004
SCCO

Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Radcliffe, Re [2004] EWHC 90039 (Costs)
20 Dec 2004
SCCO

Costs

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