A successful plaintiff who had not been shown to have behaved improperly or unreasonably was not to have his costs reduced or be ordered to pay any part of his opponents costs for having pursued some unsuccessful points.
Nourse LJ said that ‘(i) Costs are in the discretion of the court. (ii) They should follow the event, except when it appears to the court that in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made. (iii) The general rule does not cease to apply simply because the successful party raises issues or makes allegations on which he fails, but where that has caused a significant increase in the length or cost of the proceedings he may be deprived of the whole or a part of his costs.’
Judges:
Nourse LJ
Citations:
Gazette 15-Jul-1992, Times 18-Jun-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 1207, [1993] 1 All ER 232, [1993] BCLC 119
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – In re Elgindata Ltd ChD 1991
The plaintiff obtained a patent which was then to be utilised through the company, of which the plaintiff had one third shares. He later complained that the majority shareholder had acted prejudicially.
Held: Mismanagement could amount to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Amber v Stacey CA 15-Nov-2000
The defendant challenged an order that he should pay the plaintiff’s costs, having made an offer in correspondence which was not accepted.
Held: The claimant had exaggerated his claim, but the defendant’s offer had been inadequate. The judge’s . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others CA 16-Dec-2004
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 . .
Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Cited – Re Southbourne Sheet Metal Co Ltd CA 9-Sep-1992
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had sought orders of disqualification against the director and a co-director under the provisions of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Secretary of State’s summons was supported by an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.85760
