Tag: Costs

Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham and Jones: ChD 5 Oct 2006

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2428 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Principal Judgment – Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham and Jones ChD 14-Feb-2006
The defendant solicitors were being sued for professional negligence. The claimants had taken legal advice after termination of the retainer which led to the present action, and sought to rely upon part of counsel’s opinion. The defendants sought . .

Cited by:

See Also (Costs) – Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham and Jones (A Firm) CA 28-Feb-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245191

Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council: CA 31 Jul 2006

The Court considered the validity of after the event legal expenses insurance and conditional fee agreements schemes, and in particular whether an ATE premium was recoverable by a successful claimant. The damages had been agreed in the sum of pounds 3,105 plus interest. The case went to trial and the claimant won. The deputy district judge assessed the costs in the sum of pounds 16,821. This included an ATE premium of pounds 5,103.
Held: The premium was recoverable as a proportionate expense if it was necessarily incurred, even if the amount was large in comparison with the amount of damages reasonably claimed. In support of justifying the premium charged, the court envisaged a note from the solicitor explaining how a particular ATE product came to be chosen and whether it was block rated or individually rated.
Brooke LJ said: ‘In this case it might be thought that all the considerations urged on the court by Mr Bartlett which favour the course taken by Mr Cater, the appellant’s solicitor, might go to demonstrate the reasonableness of his bill of costs – specifically, the ATE insurance staged premium – but not its proportionality: precisely because they have nothing to do with the quantum of the claim. But we do not think that is right. If the court concludes that it was necessary to incur the staged premium, then as this court’s judgment in [Lownds] shows, it should be adjudged a proportionate expense. Necessity here is, we think, not some absolute litmus test. It may be demonstrated by the application of strategic considerations which travel beyond the dictates of the particular case. Thus it may include, as we are persuaded it does, the unavoidable characteristics of the market in insurance of this kind. It does so because this very market is integral to the means of providing access to justice in civil disputes in what may be called the post-legal aid world.
It is important to recognise that this conclusion runs with, not across, the grain of the procedural reforms expressed in the CPR. The very recognition that justice requires a use of resources that is proportionate to what is at stake implies the rightness of a strategic approach. There can be no touchstone of a proportionate use of resources so understood, without an eye to the context in which any such resources are expended. Once it is concluded that the ATE staged premium here was necessarily incurred, principle and pragmatism together compel the conclusion that it was a proportionate expense. We turn therefore to the question whether the ATE staged premium was necessarily incurred.’

Judges:

Brooke VP CA, Laws, Smith LJJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1134, [2007] 1 WLR 808, [2006] Lloyd’s Rep IR 759, [2007] 1 All ER 354, [2007] 1 Costs LR 77

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd; Jones v Attrill etc CA 11-Dec-2008
The defendants sought to argue that the conditional fee arrangement used by the claimant’s solicitors had been void under the 2000 regulations. They claimed that the solicitors had failed to disclose an interest in the policies sold.
Held: No . .
Cited – Kris Motor Spares Ltd v Fox Williams Llp QBD 12-May-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the After the Event Insurance (ATE) bought by its solicitors late in the day in their claim, before then withdrawing the conditional fee agreement. The premium was over andpound;90,000.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 14-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the success of a sale by a mortgagee in possession of various properties. The parties disputed the apportionment of costs.
Held: The appeal failed. Where there is no express agreement concerning the division of costs, a . .
Cited – Kris Motor Spares Ltd v Fox Williams Llp QBD 12-May-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the After the Event Insurance (ATE) bought by its solicitors late in the day in their claim, before then withdrawing the conditional fee agreement. The premium was over andpound;90,000.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244103

Al-Koronky and Another v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another: CA 28 Jul 2006

The claimants sought damages after publication of articles alleging severe mistreatment of a servant. One defendant had settled and apologised, but the defendant publisher and author had persisted with the allegation. The claimants who lived in Sudan, now appealed an order that they provide security for costs, seeking to adduce additional evidence of their means.
Held: ‘the court, once satisfied that the case is one in which the claimant ought to put up security for the defendant’s costs before continuing with his action, is going to find itself in one of two situations. Either it will be satisfied that it probably has a full account of the resources available to the claimant, in which case it can calculate with reasonable confidence how much the claimant can afford to put up; or it will not be satisfied that it has a full account, and so cannot make the calculation. Does it follow in the latter situation that the court must go straight to the amount sought by the defendant and, having pruned it of anything which appears excessive or disproportionate, fix that as the security? Or is there a middle way – for example to set an amount which represents the court’s best estimate of what the claimant, despite having been insufficiently candid, can afford?
In our judgment there is such a power, but it resides in the court’s discretion rather than in legal principle. In the second situation we have postulated, the requirements of the law have been exhausted: what remains is to set a suitable sum. This classically is where discretion fills the space left by judgment: the court has a choice of courses, none of which it can be criticised for taking provided it makes its election on a proper factual basis uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. ‘

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Keene LJ, Longmore LJ

Citations:

Times 28-Aug-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1123

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited – Electra Private Equity Partners (a Limited Partnership) and others v KPMG Peat Marwick (a Firm) and others CA 23-Apr-1999
In interlocutory appeals some relaxation of the strictness of the conditions set down in Ladd v Marshall might be appropriate, according to the nature of the interlocutory hearing and the individual circumstances of the case. That would particularly . .
Cited – Banks and Another v Cox and Another CA 17-Jul-2000
The court considered the principles of admitting new evidence on appeal after the introduction of the new rules. Moritt LJ: ‘In my view the principles reflecting in the rules in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 remain relevant to any application . .
Cited – Bubbins v United Kingdom ECHR 17-Mar-2005
The deceased had returned home drunk, and climbed in through a window. His girlfriend saw only his legs and reported an intruder to the police. He refused to identify himself when challenged by the police and on pointing a gun from the window he was . .
Cited – Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 4) CA 2001
The court considered the applicability of cases before the introduction of the new rules on the exercise of a judge’s discretion.
Held: The old cases ‘remain powerful persuasive authority’. . .
Cited – Hertfordshire Investments Ltd v Bubb and Another CA 25-Jul-2000
When considering an application for a re-hearing of a County Court action in order to consider and admit new evidence, the county court and High Court practice is now the same and the judge should consider the list of questions in Ladd v Marshall, . .
Cited – Thune v London Properties Limited CA 1990
The court considered the applicability of the principles in Ladd v Marshall to an appeal from an interlocutory order being an application for security for costs.
Held: The application to admit fresh evidence was refused. Bingham LJ: ‘There is . .
Cited – Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions CA 1995
The court set out the principles to be applied by the court upon an application for security for costs.
1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light of all the relevant . .
Cited – Brimko Holdings Limited v Eastman Kodak Company 2004
The defendant sought security for costs. The court considered the burden of proof in such a claim: ‘. . the court should not restrict its evaluation of the ability of a claimant to provide security to the means of the claimant itself. If the . .
Cited – Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait CA 11-Apr-2001
The claimant, a foreign resident, alleged that her jewels had been stolen from a deposit box while in possession of the defendants. The defendants sought security for costs.
Held: An order for security may not legitimately be based on the bare . .
Cited – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .
Cited – Kufaan Publishing Ltd v Al-Warrak Publishing Ltd CA 1-Mar-2002
. .
Cited – Buttes Oil and Gas Co v Hammer (No 3) HL 1982
The House considered a dispute between two Us oil companies about the right to exploit an oil field in the Gulf. Each claimed to have a concession granted by the ruler of a Gulf state. Each state claimed that the oil field was within its territorial . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
Cited – Jeyaretnam v Mahmood 21-May-1992
For the purpose of an application to discharge an order for service on a defendant outside the jurisdiction, the court declined to evaluate allegations of lack of independence or impartiality in the defendant’s home country of Singapore on the . .
Cited – Skrine and Co (a Firm) and others v Euromoney Publications plc and others QBD 10-Nov-2000
The court was asked to strike out parts of a defemation pleading alleging that (i) the Malaysian Prime Minister had acted in a manner intended and/or calculated to interfere with the independent judiciary; (ii) Malaysian judges applied the law of . .
Appeal from – Al-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243991

Gaynor v Central West London Buses Ltd: CA 28 Jul 2006

The solicitors appealed a finding that a conditional fee agreement with their client was unenforceable as against their client for failing to meet the requirements of the 1990 Act, which in turn deprived them of a right to claim the costs from the defendant. It was said that the client care letter did not show an unconditional intention to enter into a conditional fee agreement for services provided before the agreement.
Held: The solicitor’s appeal failed. The purpose of s58 was the protection of clients. ‘the work done before a decision is made not to pursue the claim pursuant to the last paragraph on the page is not the provision of litigation services. In my judgment, ‘contemplated proceedings’ are proceedings of which it can be said that there is at least a real likelihood that they will be issued. Until the potential defendant disputes the claim, it is not possible to say that proceedings are contemplated. Advising a client as to whether he or she has a good prima facie case and writing a letter of claim are not enough to amount to litigation services. ‘

Judges:

Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1120, Times 25-Aug-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Access to Justice Act 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243994

The Scottish Lion Insurance Company Ltd, Re Sanction of A Scheme of Arrangement: SCS 8 Mar 2006

Sanction had been sought for a scheme of arrangement on the winding up of an insurance company. There were objections. The original scheme had been proposed under English law, and it would be inappropriate for a Scottish court to try to sanction such an arrangement. Payment of et fess of Engliah lawyers was sought.
Held: the court could not sanction the payment in the manner requested. The court set out how the Auditor must look at the English solicitor’s fee account.

Citations:

[2006] ScotCS CSOH – 37

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 425, Court of Session Act 1988, Interpretation Act 1978 811

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Wilson v Craig 1983
. .
Cited – Wimpey Construction (UK) Ltd v Martin Black and Co (Wire Ropes) Ltd 1988
The provisions of the Table of Fees under the Rules of Court were only applicable to Scottish solicitors. The court set out how fees incurred to solicitors practising outside Scotland are recovered in a Scottish taxation of expenses. In summary: 1. . .
Cited – Laing v Scottish Arts Council SCS 15-Dec-2000
A Lord Ordinary has power to correct an interlocutor to bring it into line with the court’s original intention. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.238902

National Westminster Bank Plc v Kotonou and Another: ChD 19 Jun 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1785 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – National Westminster Bank Plc v Kotonou CA 26-Feb-2007
. .
See Also – National Westminster Bank v Kotonou ChD 11-Dec-2009
. .
See Also – Kotonou v National Westminster Bank Plc ChD 5-Jul-2010
. .
See Also – Kotonou v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 30-Oct-2015
Appeal against summary dismissal of claim against the bank based on Henderson v Henderson.
Gloster LJ, commented on Buxton LJ’s observations in the Taylor Walton case: ‘Thus, in my view, what is required in the present case is ‘an intense focus . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243390

Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another: CA 6 Apr 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 621

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 8-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to re-open their appeal saying that the respondent department had failed properly to describe the workings of the clawback scheme under which its claim had been made.
Held: A DEFRA official had provided materially . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242144

Wylde v Culver: ChD 12 Apr 2006

The claimant sought to discontinue his probate action on the day of trial, and an order as to costs.
Held: The discontinuance should be allowed, there being no public interest to be served in a continuance. As to costs ‘in probate actions there is no stated presumption that a discontinuing claimant should pay the costs down to the discontinuance. However I approach the question of costs on the basis that the Claimant, in seeking to discontinue, should ordinarily pay the costs, and that the onus lies with him to show why there should be some different order. Shortly stated, in the absence of some good reason for a different order, it can be taken that the action was wrongly brought. This, after all, would be the starting point if the action went to trial and was dismissed. ‘ In this case, the claimant had been reasonable in acting on the issues on which the action was based, and he should not be ordered to pay the costs on the discontinuance. No order for costs was made.

Judges:

George Bompas QC

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 923 (Ch), [2006] 1 WLR 2674, [2006] 4 All ER 345

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Green v Briscoe 9-May-2005
The Court had dismissed an action brought to obtain an order pronouncing against a will, revocation of the probate granted in respect of the will and a declaration of intestacy. The defendant executor had counterclaimed for a grant of probate in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs, Wills and Probate

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241462

Lloyd v Svenby: QBD 21 Mar 2006

Judges:

Mr Justice Stanley Burnton

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 576 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lloyd v Svenby QBD 27-Feb-2006
The two claimants sought title to a car registration plate and to a chassis number. They were to be applied to historic racing cars.
Held: The power to assign registration marks lay with the Secretary of State. Any legal rights rested not with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239296

Haji-Ioannou and others v Frangos and others: ChD 24 Feb 2006

The successful party had not commenced proceedings for assessment of his costs. The defendant asked the court to disallow part of the costs as a penalty for non-compliance.
Held: The court had power to disallow any interest on the costs, but not any part of the costs themselves.

Judges:

Lindsay J, Master Rogers, David Harris

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 279 (Ch), Times 07-Apr-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238709

Butt v Nizami: QBD 9 Feb 2006

The court considered the effect of negotiations on costs claims: ‘Changes were made to the Rules of Court. Some of these changes, and in particular the provisions of Sections II to V of CPR45, were introduced following ‘industry wide’ discussions under the aegis of the Civil Justice Council. Agreement was reached on the recoverable costs in the different situations covered by the various sections.
It seems to me clear that the intention underlying CPR 45.7-14 was to provide an agreed scheme of recovery which was certain and easily calculated. This was done by providing fixed levels of remuneration which might over-reward in some cases and under-reward in others, but which were regarded as fair when taken as a whole.’

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

[2006] 2 All ER 140, [2006] EWHC 159 (QB), [2006] 1 WLR 3307

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 45.7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Lamont v Burton CA 9-May-2007
The defendant had settled the claim for damages for personal injury. His payment in had been rejected, but the claimant won a smaller sum at trial. He now argued that the claimant should not receive the full 100% costs uplift provided.
Held: . .
Cited – Kilby v Gawith CA 19-May-2008
No discretion for refusal of costs
The court was asked whether it has a discretion under Rule 45.11(1) whether or not to award a claimant, who has entered into a conditional fee agreement with his solicitor, the fixed success fee of 12.5%.
Held: The court had no discretion to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238552

Kiam v MGN Ltd: CA 6 Feb 2002

The defendants appealed against the award by a jury of andpound;105,000 to the claimant for libel. Some time before the appeal was due to be heard the claimant offered to accept andpound;75,000, and to return the additional andpound;30,000, plus appropriate interest, a proposal which the appellants simply ignored.
The Court of Appeal, by a majority, dismissed the appeal on the merits, and affirmed the award of andpound;105,000 damages. The question then arose as to whether, in those circumstances, the claimant was entitled to his costs of the appeal on the indemnity basis, rather than on the standard basis. The Court of Appeal considered Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd, McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Reid Minty (A Firm) v Taylor, and considered that the award of indemnity costs did, notwithstanding some of the dicta in those cases, carry some stigma, and held that it would be a rare case indeed where a refusal of a settlement offer would attract not merely an adverse order for costs, but such an order on the indemnity rather than the standard basis. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal unanimously refused the claimant’s application for costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis, though it seems that they may well have been strongly influenced by the fact that the minority Judge would only have awarded andpound;60,000 damages.

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 9018 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235579

Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd: SCCO 28 Nov 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 9037 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Main Judgment – Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Dec-2000
Where a defendant in a defamation action sought to reduce the damages payable by arguing that the claimant had a reduced or damaged reputation, he could include evidence about particular facts only where these were directly connected to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235598

Andre Agassi v S Robinson (H M Inspector of Taxes) (No 2): CA 2 Dec 2005

The taxpayer had been represented in proceedings throughout by tax law experts, Tenon Media, who were not legally admitted, but had a right to conduct litigation under the 1990 Act. The Inspector objected to paying costs as if the representatives were admitted.
Held: Someone acting through the licensed access schemes was not a litigant in person. However the guidance noted that under the scheme: ‘. . . any litigation will have to be conducted on the basis that the litigant is a litigant in person.’ Though he ws able to recover some disbursements, he was not able to recover the general profit costs of those he had employed.

Judges:

Booke LJ, Dyson LJ, Carnwath LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1507, Times 22-Dec-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974 20, Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 17, Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Jonathan Alexander Ltd v Proctor CA 19-Dec-1995
A company represented in proceedings by a director is not a litigant in person, and therefore has no expenses or costs claimable from the other party.
Hirst LJ said: ‘. . the ordinary meaning, as I understand it, of the description ‘litigant . .
See Also – Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) CA 19-Nov-2004
. .
Cited – Gregory and Gregory v Turner, Turner; Regina (Morris) v North Somerset Council CA 19-Feb-2003
The parties were involved in a boundary dispute. One granted an enduring power of attorney, and sought to appear as a litigant in person through the power.
Held: The right of a litigant in person to represent himself was a personal right, and . .
Cited – The Law Society of the United Kingdom v Waterlow Brothers and Layton HL 1883
There was a claim that there had been a breach of section 2 of the 1843 Act by law stationers (who had had various dealings with the Probate registry under the supervision of solicitors). The Rules of the Probate Court required applications for . .
Cited – In re Ainsworth, ex parte the Law Society 1905
An unqualified person who gives notice of appearance is thereby acting in contravention of section 2 of the 1843 Act. The relevant rule of court required a notice of appearance to be given either by the defendant himself or his solicitor. . .

Cited by:

Se Also – Agassi v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes HL 17-May-2006
The tax payer played tennis and was paid sums for when he played in England. The sums were paid to his overseas based company.
Held: The revenue’s appeal succeeded. The ‘legislative intendment in relation to sections 555 and 556, and their . .
mentioned – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Costs

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235535

Wates Construction Ltd v HGP Greentree Allchurch Evans Ltd: TCC 10 Oct 2005

A unit constructed by the claimant had collapsed under a weight of rainwater. It had been constructed according to a design provided by the defendants. The claimants had discontinued the action on the morning of the trial, and the defendants now sought costs on an indemnity basis.
Held: An order for indemnity costs may only be made where a party maintains a claim or application which it knew or ought to have known was doomed to fail on its facts and on the law.
The pursuit of a weak claim will not usually, on its own, justify an order for indemnity costs, provided that the claim was at least arguable. But the pursuit of a hopeless claim (or a claim which the party pursuing it should have realised was hopeless) may well lead to such an order.

Judges:

Peter Coulson QC

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2174 (TCC), [2006] BLR 45, 105 Con LR 47

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Atlantic Bar and Grill Ltd v Posthouse Hotels Ltd 2000
The third defendant sought an order that the costs of the claim for an injunction against him, once it was discontinued on the second day of trial, should be assessed on an indemnity basis.
Held: The order should be made. The power of the . .
Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .
Cited – Kiam II v MGN Ltd (2) CA 6-Feb-2002
An appeal against a damages award in a defamation case had been unsuccessful. The claimant now appealed for the award of indemnity costs. The claimant had made an offer of compromise, which had been ignored by the defendant.
Held: If a party . .

Cited by:

Cited – Evans and Others v The Serious Fraud Office QBD 12-Feb-2015
The claimants had had criminal charges brought against them by the defendants. A court had ordered them discharged, but the defendant had recommenced proceedings and these second set of proceedings had also been dismissed by the court. They now . .
Cited – Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v AMEC Earth and Environmental (UK) Ltd TCC 14-Jun-2013
Following the proncipal judgment there were disputes as to the basis of assessment of costs and the interaction between the existing costs management order (which approved the defendant’s budget costs of andpound;264,708) and the total costs now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Professional Negligence, Costs

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231287

Experience Hendrix Llc v Purple Haze Records Ltd and Another: CA 3 Aug 2005

Claim in performance rights – challenge to order for security for costs on appeal – evidence available at date of first hearing.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1091

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – Experience Hendrix Llc v Purple Haze Records Ltd and Another ChD 24-Feb-2005
The claimant company sought summary judgment against the defendants who had manufactured and sold unauthorised recordings of a concert by the late Mr Hendrix in Sweden in 1969.
Held: The performance was given retrospective protection under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230030

Kitchen v Burwell Reed and Kinghorn Ltd: QBD 3 Aug 2005

The court considered the effect of collective conditional fee agreements. The defendant appealed against the decision of the Costs Judge whereby he held that the Claimant was entitled to claim a success fee and that there had been no breach of the indemnity principle.
Held: The appeal failed.
Gray J said: ‘clause 5.8 of the CCFA is to be interpreted as meaning that in the first instance the solicitors will call upon the Union rather than the member to pay their costs. I do not construe clause 5.8 as excluding altogether the liability of the member to pay the solicitors’ costs. The inclusion of the word ‘directly’ presupposes some other, indirect route by which the member may be liable to pay costs, for example if the Union were to withdraw support by annulling legal assistance. I accept that the parties cannot have intended by clause 5.8 that a Defendant would be able to litigate a claim by a Union member without any risk of having to pay that member’s costs. Mr McLaren concedes that this would be a consequence that the draftsman did not intend.’
He considere dthat there was a policy that the courts: ‘if they properly can, to avoid a construction of an agreement which will involve a breach of the indemnity principle because of the unfairness consequent upon such a conclusion’.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1771 (QB), [2006] 1 Costs LR 82

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Radford and Another v Frade and Others QBD 8-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to the terms on which solicitors and Counsel were retained to act for the defendants. The appeals did not raise any issues concerning costs practice, and were by way of review of the Costs Judge’s rulings, and not by way of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229289

Capewell v Customs and Excise and Another (No 2): CA 29 Jul 2005

The Commissioners had been appointed as receiver of the claimant’s assets. The receivership was later discharged, but should have been discharged earlier, the court had the power not only to calculate the level of remuneration but also who should be responsible for making payment. In this case the commissioner should bear some of the cost. The expenses of the receiver should however be recovered from the assets.

Judges:

Laws, Longmore, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 964, Times 20-Sep-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 77(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Capewell v Commissioners for HM Customs and Excise and Sinclair CA 2-Dec-2004
The court approved guidelines for the appointment and remuneration of a receiver appointed under the 1988 Act. . .
Cited – Hughes and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc CA 20-May-2002
N was charged with VAT fraud. He was the joint owner of a company with his brother T each holding 50% of the shares. T was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against N, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its . .
Cited – In Re Andrews CA 25-Feb-1999
The defendant and his son had been charged with offences relating to their joint business, and restraint orders were made. The son was convicted, but the defendant was acquitted and awarded his costs out of central funds. The taxing officer held . .

Cited by:

See Also – Capewell v Revenue and Customs and Another HL 31-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229087

Daliah Dorit Sherrington and others v Sherrington: CA 22 Mar 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 410

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sherrington v Sherrington CA 22-Mar-2005
The deceased, a solicitor of long standing, was said to have signed his will without having read it, and had two witnesses sign the document without them knowing what they were attesting. He had remarried, and the will was challenged by his . .

Cited by:

See Also – Sherrington v Sherrington CA 22-Mar-2005
The deceased, a solicitor of long standing, was said to have signed his will without having read it, and had two witnesses sign the document without them knowing what they were attesting. He had remarried, and the will was challenged by his . .
See Also – Sherrington and Another v Sherrington CA 29-Dec-2006
The deceased had after remarriage made a will which excluded from benefit entirely his first wife and children by her. Claims under the 1975 Act were put to one side while the court decided on the validity of the will, but then dismissed. The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224512

In re T (A Child), (Order for Costs): CA 21 Mar 2005

The court re-affirmed what were described as the ‘well-established principles’ relating to costs in private law applications.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 311, [2005] 2 FLR 681

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – D and D W v Portsmouth Hospital NHS; in re W (A Child) CA 3-May-2006
The claimants had sought court orders against the hospital to secure continuing life-supporting treatment for their daughter who had been born very severely disabled. The Trust now sought their costs from the various actions.
Held: The parents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223781

Mike Kiernans Beer Tent Co Ltd (T/A Fish and Duck) v Customs and Excise: VDT 9 Sep 2003

VDT COSTS – Company appearing by director – Successful appellant claiming costs in respect of time spent by director and director’s wife in preparation and conduct of appeal – No legal qualification – Whether entitled to such costs – No – Application dismissed to that extent

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18310

Links:

Bailii

VAT, Costs

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221276

Mcpherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch): SCCO 13 Jun 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 90034 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – McPherson v BNP Paribas SA (London Branch) CA 14-May-2004
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ramsay and others v Bowercross Construction Ltd and Another EAT 14-Aug-2008
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs
Costs – whether a party can recover by way of costs counsel’s fees (yes) and those of a non legally qualified adviser, as defined in s.71 CandLSA 1990 (no). Employment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220200

Cairns v The Chief Constable Strathclyde Police: OHCS 22 Oct 2004

Motion to ordain the appellant to find caution in the sum of andpound;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

Judges:

Lord Kirkwood And Lord Maclean And Sir David Edward

Citations:

[2004] ScotCS 235

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Cairns v The Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police ScSf 2-Apr-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219395

Glencore International Ag v Metro Trading International Inc and others: CA 31 Jul 2002

Claimant’s application for security for costs of defendant’s cross cross appeal.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1252

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Glencore International AG v Metro Trading International Inc and others ComC 1-Aug-2001
Under English conflicts of laws rules the transfer of title to movable property is governed by the law of the place where the property is situated.
Moore-Bick J commented obiter on a dictum of Millett J in Macmillan: ‘However, if the lex situs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Costs

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217404

Abu v MGN Ltd: SCCO 19 Jul 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 90017 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Abu v MGN Ltd QBD 2003
There should be nothing in any sense ‘rough and ready’ about the assessment of the claimant’s reputation under the offer of amends procedure in the 1996 Act. If compensation is not agreed it should be determined by the court on the same principles . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216453

Parke v Butler: QBD 26 May 2016

The court was asked: ‘In a case where a claimant has the benefit of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) at trial, is he subject to the ordinary rules as to costs on a first appeal to an appeal court at least where no other order is made under CPR 52.9A?’

Judges:

Edis J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1251 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.564926

Milanese v Leyton Orient Football Club Ltd (Costs): QBD 26 May 2016

Costs following dismissal of claim.

Judges:

Whipple L

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1263 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Milanese v Leyton Orient Football Club Ltd QBD 26-May-2016
The claimant sought damages alleging his wrongful dismissal as director of the defendant football club. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.564925

Khaira and Others v Shergill and Others: CA 27 Oct 2017

‘This appeal raises technical but important issues on the entitlement of a party who is awarded the costs of an interlocutory appeal to an immediate assessment of those costs. Two issues of general application arise. First, is the party entitled to an immediate assessment without the need for an express order to that effect? Secondly, if not and if the appellate court has not made an order for an immediate assessment, does a costs judge have jurisdiction to make such an order? A third issue is whether an order of the Supreme Court made in this case entitled the respondents to this appeal to an immediate assessment of their costs in the Court of Appeal.’

Judges:

Lloyd-Jones L, David Richards, Moylan LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1687

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Khaira and Others v Shergill and Others CA 17-Jul-2012
The parties disputed the trusteeship and governance of two Gurdwaras (Sikh temples). The defendants now applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the differences were as to Sikh doctrines and practice and as such were unjusticiable. . .
See Also – Shergill v Khaira and Others CA 2-Oct-2012
. .
At SC – Shergill and Others v Khaira and Others SC 11-Jun-2014
The parties disputed the trusts upon which three Gurdwaras (Sikh Temples) were held. The Court of Appeal had held that the issues underlying the dispute were to be found in matters of the faith of the Sikh parties, and had ordered a permanent stay. . .
See Also – Khaira and Others v Shergill and Others ChD 23-Mar-2016
. .
See Also – Shergill and Others v Khaira and Others ChD 3-Mar-2017
The court considered the identification of one of the ancient Sikh gurus in order to ascertain the rights of current gurdwaras . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.598466

Oko-Jaja v Lewisham Borough of Lewisham: EAT 8 May 2001

The applicant had complained of disability discrimination, and failed. He had been ordered to pay a sum towards the costs of the respondent. He appealed that order. He had previously issued a complaint, and lost that complaint, being warned then of the possibility of such an order. This second complaint was of victimisation, but the decision makers knew nothing of his first complaint. His complaint was dismissed. The tribunal recognised the unreasonableness of his complaint, and the substantial cost to the respondent, and awarded pounds 250 costs. The respondent cross appealed, saying that the award should not have been so limited.
Held: In making that decision the tribunal had taken into account a suggestion that the appellant had had all relevant evidence available to him from an early stage. The nature of victimisation complaints is that they are difficult to prove, and it may often be proper for a complainant to rely upon the hope of cross examination.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

Mrs Recorder Cox QC

Citations:

EAT/417/00, [2001] UKEAT 417 – 00 – 0805

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals Constitution and Procedure Regulations 1993 Sch 1 r 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – M J Benyon and others v David Scadden and others EAT 14-Jun-1999
The tribunal had found that the claimants and their union had pursued their case, even though they recognised the weakness of the case, with the additional intention of persuading their employer to recognise their union, UNISON. Such behaviour was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, Costs

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203899

Papera Traders Co Ltd and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd. and Another: SCCO 17 Sep 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 9018 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Papera Traders Co Ltd and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd and Another ComC 7-Feb-2002
. .
See Also – Papera Traders Co Limited and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Limited, The Keihin Co Limited QBD 7-Feb-2002
A fire destroyed the ‘Eurasian Dream’ while in port. It was carrying cars, a fire in which got out of control. It was claimed that the ship managers had been negligent. The bill of lading contracts in the present case incorporated either the Hague . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201850

Stena Rederi Aktiebolag, Stena Line Aktiebolag v Irish Ferries Ltd.: CA 13 Feb 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201575

Wiltshire v Powell and others (Costs): CA 7 May 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Latham Lady Justice Arden Mr Justice Holman

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 626

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .

Cited by:

See also – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.197969

Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2): CA 1 Apr 1991

In ancillary relief proceedings, the husband had not made frank disclosure of his assets. The final Calderbank offer of andpound;600,000 was made only the day before the substantive hearing. The offer was rejected. The judge awarded the wife a lump sum of andpound;1 million. The judge made no order as to costs after the date when the wife’s solicitors had rejected an earlier, lower, offer by the husband. From that date both sides had acted reasonably. The wife appealed. No counter-offer had been made by the wife.
Held: The starting point, is that costs prima facie follow the event but in family cases this rule may be displaced more easily, and it is unusual to order costs in children cases. For financial relief the applicant has to make the application in order to obtain an order. Orders by consent; usually include the applicant’s costs. If contested and the applicant succeeds, where money available and no special factors, the applicant spouse is likely to obtain an order for costs. The behaviour of one party, such as in material non-disclosure of documents, may be a material factor. In some few cases the assets are substantial and an order for costs can (if appropriate) be made. The court rules reflect the need for Calderbank offers, subject to conditions, to have teeth. The respondent must make a serious offer worthy of consideration. If he does so, the applicant should accept or reject the offer and make clear any counter-offer. Both should negotiate. There is a very wide discretion in the court in awarding costs. Many reasons may affect costs including material non-disclosure, and delay or excessive zeal. The need to use all the available money to house the spouse and children of the family may be constraints. It would be inappropriate to constrain that wide of discretion. But the starting point in a case where there has been an offer is that, prima facie, if the applicant receives no more or less than the offer made, she/he is at risk not only of not being awarded costs, but also of paying the costs of the other party after communication of the offer and a reasonable time to consider it. ‘I cannot, for my part, see why there is any difference in principle between the position of a party who fails to obtain an order equal to the offer made and pays the costs, and a party who fails by the offer to meet the award made by the court. In the latter case prima facie costs should follow the event, as they would do in a payment into court, with the proviso that other factors in the Family Division may alter that prima facie position.’
Russell LJ: ‘In his opening submissions to this court, counsel for the husband invited us to lay down guidelines which would, he said, be of assistance to those charged with the responsibility of deciding what, after divorce, is the appropriate level of lump sum payments in cases where very substantial capital assets are available. I do not think that such an exercise is possible. The guidelines already exist. Section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is the enabling provision for an order for the payment of a lump sum. Section 25, as amended by the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, in terms, requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case and subsection (2), under no less than eight sub-paragraphs, sets out the matters to which the court in particular shall have regard.
In the individual case, some of those matters will assume greater importance than others and, indeed, the facts of this case well illustrate that proposition. In my judgment in this case we are concerned with a wholly exceptional set of circumstances . . . . ‘

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ, Russell LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 FLR 233, [1992] Fam 40, Times 01-May-1991, [1992] 1 All ER 267

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Calderbank v Calderbank CA 5-Jun-1975
Letter Without Prejudice Save as to Costs
Husband and wife disputed provision under 1973 Act, and a summons under section 17 of the 1882 Act. The wife had offered to transfer a house to H occupied by his mother, worth about pounds 12,000, in return for him leaving the matrimonial home. He . .
Cited – Singer (formerly Sharegin) v Sharegin 1984
In family proceedings, the starting point for the award of costs is that they prima facie follow the event but that presumption may be displaced much more easily than, and in circumstances which would not apply, in other divisions of the High Court. . .
Cited – McDonnell v McDonnell CA 1977
In family proceedings, a costs letter had been written in the form suggested in Calderbank.
Held: The court accepted and endorsed the practice suggested by Cairns LJ. Ormrod LJ said: ‘The important factor which distinguishes this case is the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Butcher v Wolfe and Another CA 30-Oct-1998
The parties had been partners in a family farm. On dissolution there was a dispute as to apportionment of costs. An offer had been ‘without prejudice save as to costs’.
Held: Costs may be denied to a plaintiff who had received a Calderbank . .
Cited – Norris v Norris, Haskins v Haskins CA 28-Jul-2003
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 . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – In re T (Children) SC 25-Jul-2012
The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house . .
Cited – Re S (A Child) SC 25-Mar-2015
The Court was asked as to the proper approach to ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful appeal in cases about the care and upbringing of children. It arises in the specific context of a parent’s successful appeal to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.182186

Regina v Supreme Court Taxing Office Ex Parte John Singh and Co: QBD 3 May 1995

A Taxing Master’s refusal of a certificate for point of principle on taxation is reviewable. Henry LJ: ‘Counsel for the Taxing Master conceded that such a jurisdiction existed but submitted that it should be restricted to cases where there had been a real injustice. I agree with both that concession and, in general terms, with the limitation on it. In his refusal to certify, the Taxing Master was exercising a ‘strong’ discretion entrusted under the statutory scheme to him. The cases where the supervisory court could reverse a failure to certify would, in the circumstances, be very rare indeed. In those circumstances, in my judgment, we should treat the complaints made in the judicial review as a deemed application under the inherent jurisdiction of the court and I, for my part, would do so.’

Judges:

Henry LJ

Citations:

Times 03-May-1995, [1997] 1 Costs LR 49

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1969 23(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Brewer, Regina (on the Application of) v Supreme Court Costs Office Admn 27-Jul-2006
The defendant had been acquitted. Orders had been made both for payment of his legal costs, and also for re-imbursement of his own costs. The defendant was accused of serious fraud, and had engaged an American attorney to assist him before . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88133

Texuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc: ComC 17 May 2004

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’.

Judges:

Gross J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1102 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 25.13(1)(a) 25.13(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
Cited – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 7-Mar-2006
The claimant resided in Romania, and sought damages for libel. The magazine had obtained an order for security for costs. An offer had been made to cover the sum ordered, and no stifling could now happen.
Held: Any order for security costs in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197077

Grimes v Crown Prosecution Service: CA 27 Nov 2003

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.’

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1814

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193650

Dickinson v Rushmer: SCCO 21 Dec 2001

CourtService After strenuously contested proceedings in the County Court for an account the claimant recovered some andpound;18,000, and subsequently submitted a bill for andpound;86,000 odd. The indemnity principle was raised before a Deputy Costs Judge who then asked to see the client care letter, the bill of costs sent to the client and the calculations of payments made thereunder, but refused to show these documents to the paying party, holding that he was satisfied that there had been no breach of the indemnity principle after considering the documents, and then proceeded with the assessment, which resulted in some, but only modest, reductions in the figure claimed. The defendant appealed, contending that he should have been permitted to see the documents shown to the Costs Judge.
In this case, in contrast with the case of South Coast Shipping (No.15 of 2001), the learned Judge felt able to decide the issue purely on careful analysis of the English authorities, without reference to the European legislation or authorities, though they were cited to him.
The gist of the Judge’s decision allowing the appeal is in paragraph 33 of his judgment, which reads:
‘In my view, the procedure adopted by the costs judge was unfair. I can in any event see no good reason why the client care letter and the payment calculations could not have been disclosed to the defendant, since I have not been persuaded that they were privileged. But if anything in them might have been regarded as privileged, one course which might at least have been considered was the redaction from them of the privileged parts, a course which could or might also have been considered in relation to Wakefields’ bills. Ultimately, however, this was a simple situation in which the claimant chose to prove his version of a disputed issue of fact by reference to certain documents. In my view, the basic principle is that, if he wanted to do so, fairness required him also to disclose the documents to the defendant.’
The learned Judge earlier held that in his opinion the bill to the client was, on the basis of the judgment of Sir G J Turner V-C in Chant v Brown [1852] 9 HARE 790, privileged from production.

Judges:

Mr Justice Rimer sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2002] 1 Costs LR 98, [2001] EW Costs 17, [2001] EWHC 9018 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Dickinson (T/a John Dickinson Equipment Finance) v Rushmer (T/a F J Associates) CA 14-Feb-2000
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185957

Adams v MacInnes: SCCO 8 Nov 2001

CourtService In this case Mr MacInnes, who was the Second Defendant, was ordered to pay the costs of proceedings for possession brought by Mr Adams. Although the case commenced as a straightforward possession action it developed into a far more complex piece of litigation. The inter partes bill was brought in at andpound;194,139 after detailed assessment was reduced somewhat, particularly because the Master reduced the claim for uplift of 80% to 65%.
The Defendant appealed, claiming a breach of the indemnity principle and a champertous agreement between the Claimant and his solicitors. He sought to have the whole of the inter partes bill set aside on the basis that the agreement between the Claimant and his solicitors was unlawful and unenforceable.
The evidence was that in 1990 the solicitors had sent a client care letter to the Claimant setting out their terms of business and asking him to sign and return a copy of the letter. No copy of that letter survives, although there was evidence which proved conclusively that it had been sent and that the Claimant had received it. There was however no evidence that he agreed to the terms of the letter. The solicitors delivered to the Claimant periodic bills setting out the work they had done during the preceding period. The Claimant paid those bills. In August 1994 the solicitors sent a further client care letter, a copy of which was produced, setting out their terms of business and stating in terms that they would apply an uplift for care and conduct but probably not until the end of the action when they could decide what mark-up was merited. The solicitors continued to send periodic bills but it was not until May 1996 that the bills changed in format and bore a prominent message to the effect that that the bill was an interim bill. The defendants case was that the 1994 letter was evidence of a sham agreement between the Claimant solicitors and the Claimant and that had the Claimant lost he would have been charged the basic rate without uplift but that when he won the solicitors applied the maximum uplift they thought they could recover.
There was evidence that the Claimant had paid all the bills totalling andpound;196,725. The bills which had been delivered to the Claimant until May 1996 were drawn in a way which made them look like final bills. They set out exactly what work had been done, the rate being charged and the period covered by the bill and each carried a notice informing the client of his rights to detailed assessment under the Solicitors Act.
At the hearing it became apparent that the Defendant had not seen the client care letter or any of the interim bills. Mr Hutton who appeared for the Claimant asserted that they were privileged and that whilst the Claimant had no objection to producing the documents to the court they should not be disclosed to the Defendant. Mr Justice Gray indicated that he thought this was most unsatisfactory and could constitute a breach of Article 6 ECHR and offended against the principle of equality of arms. Having taken instructions Mr Hutton accepted that the Defendant should have sight of the documents in issue. When giving judgment Mr Justice Gray indicated that he thought it should be standard practice where a client care letter was affirmatively relied on that it was produced to the paying party. He felt this should become standard practice.
On the facts of the case the Judge found that notwithstanding an affidavit by the solicitor setting out their practice in 1990 (which was not challenged on cross examination) the bills delivered by the solicitors were in such form as to raise serious doubts as to the accuracy of the solicitors’ assertion. In those circumstances the Judge found that the Master was wrong to accept the solicitors evidence and amended the Master’s certificate to disallow all care and conduct until August 1994.
The Defendant was allowed one quarter of his costs of appeal on the basis that although he had succeeded on the uplift point he had failed on his main thrust of champerty and illegality and had also failed in respect of the bills delivered after August 1994.

Judges:

Mr Justice Gray sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 13, [2001] EWHC 9014 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185953

Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another v Steinberg: SCCO 27 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 9010 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Englefield and Another v Steinberg CA 26-Mar-2001
Application for leave to appeal out of time against an interim order in defamation claim.
Held: The defendant had not shown any good cause for setting the judge’s case management directions aside, nor that he should recuse himself. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another QBD 18-Jun-2003
. .
See Also – Englefield v Steinberg (No 2) SCS 20-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Pritchard Englefield v Steinberg and Steinberg ChD 30-Jul-2004
Enforcement of charging order absolute. . .
See Also – Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another CA 3-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by . .
See Also – Steinberg v Englefield and Another CA 5-Jul-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185701