Tag: Costs

Groupama Insurance Company Ltd v Overseas Partners Re Ltd and Another: ComC 21 Feb 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 290 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Groupama Insurance Company Ltd v Overseas Partners Re Ltd and Another ComC 24-Jan-2003
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Groupama Insurance Company Limited v Overseas Partners Re Limited Andaon Limited CA 17-Dec-2003
The court overruled the refusal of a trial judge to award any costs at all to a successful defendant in the Commercial Court and substituted an order that it be allowed 90% of its costs of the action (the discount of 10% being attributable to the . .
See Also – Groupama Insurance Company Ltd v Overseas Partners Re Ltd and Another ComC 24-Jan-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182607

Islam v Ali: CA 26 Mar 2003

For a costs appeal to succeed it must be established that the judge has exceeded the limits of his proper discretion by the order made. Auld LJ said that the Court should only intervene: ‘the judge has either erred in principle in his approach, or has left out of account, or taken into account, some feature that he should, or should not, have considered, or that [the exercise of] his discretion is wholly wrong because the court is forced to the conclusion that he has not balanced the various factors fairly in the scale.’

Judges:

Auld LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 612

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones and Another v Ruth and Another CA 12-Jul-2011
The parties were neighbours. The claimants succeeded in their assertion of trespass and nuisance in building works carried out by the defendant. The claimant appealed against the judge’s failure to award damages for harassment, saying that though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181930

Wagstaff v Colls and Another: CA 2 Apr 2003

The action had been stayed by an order on agreed terms. The claimant sought a wasted costs order against the defendants’ solicitors on the ground that they had witheld certain facts during the litigation. The defendants argued that they should first apply for a lift of the stay.
Held: An application of a wasted costs order was only tangential to the main proceedings, and it was not necessary first to apply to lift the stay. The action was not dead as if it had been dismissed. The actions required under the Tomlin order had been concluded, and a wasted costs application had nothing to with the defendants and would not affect them adversely. There was no need to lift the stay, just as there would be no need for permission to pursue such an applcation after a final order in any proceedings.

Judges:

Ward, Buxton, Arden LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 469, [2003] 4 Costs LR 535, [2003] CP Rep 50, [2003] PNLR 29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rofa Sport Management AG v DHL International (UK) Ltd CA 1989
After an action had been stayed, it remained technically in being. It cannot proceed or resume without a court order, but it cannot properly be regarded as dead, in the same way as it might had it been dismissed or discontinued by order. . .
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Cited – Myers v Elman HL 1939
The solicitor had successfully appealed against an order for a contribution to the other party’s legal costs, after his clerk had filed statements in court which he knew to be misleading. The solicitor’s appeal had been successful.
Held: The . .
See Also – Wagstaff v Colls SCCO 2-Apr-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181180

A L Barnes Ltd v Time Talk (UK) Ltd: CA 26 Mar 2003

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

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 402, Times 09-Apr-2003, [2003] BLR 331

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pearce v Brooks 1866
The contract was for the hire of an ornamental brougham to a prostitute which was supplied with knowledge that it would be used ‘as part of her display’. She returned it in a damaged condition, and refused to make any payments under the contract as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Contract

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180435

Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others: ComC 17 Mar 2003

The court was able to make costs orders which differentiated between different stages and elements of a case. This might well result, as here, in a situation of a succesful claimant being ordered to pay 80% of the defendant’s costs, because of costs incurred pursuing issues on which it lost.

Judges:

Tomlinson J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 472 (Comm), Times 29-Mar-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36.21(3)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Summit Property Ltd v Pitmans CA 19-Nov-2001
Whilst surprising, it was possible that a successful claimant could be ordered to pay the majority of a defendant’s costs. Under the Civil Procedure rules, it was proper to order costs on an issue by issue basis. . .
Cited – Stena Rederi Aktiebolag and Another v Irish Ferries Ltd CA 6-Feb-2003
A ferry plied its way between Dublin and Holyhead, coming into English territorial waters three or four times a day, and for up to three hours on each occasion. The claimants asserted that the construction of the hull infringed its patent.
Cited – Johnsey Estates and Limited v Secretary of State for Environment CA 11-Apr-2001
Chadwick LJ: ‘The principles applicable in the present case may, I think, be summarised as follows: (i) costs cannot be recovered except under an order of the court; (ii) the question whether to make any order as to costs – and, if so, what order – . .
See also – Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others (‘Kastor Too’) ComC 4-Dec-2002
The claimant ship owner and its mortgagee sued the defendant insurer after the loss of the insured vessel, through fire. The insurers replied that the damage by fire was so extensive that the vessel was beyond repair when she sank, and was therefore . .

Cited by:

See Also – Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others (‘Kastor Too’) ComC 4-Dec-2002
The claimant ship owner and its mortgagee sued the defendant insurer after the loss of the insured vessel, through fire. The insurers replied that the damage by fire was so extensive that the vessel was beyond repair when she sank, and was therefore . .
Appeal from – Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v Axa Global Risks (Uk) Ltd and others CA 10-Mar-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insurance

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179926

In re Claims Direct Test Cases: CA 12 Feb 2003

The parties sought repayment as part of their costs of insurance premiums paid by claimants undertaking litigation.
Held: The underwriters charged andpound;140.00 for each case. Claims Direct charged a premium of andpound;1,250.00 for each case, and out of which they paid the underwriters. The underwriters would not insure unless appropriate arrangements were in place for management of the cases, and they were not in a position themselve sto provide that support. Nevertheless, it had not been the intention of Parliament to overload the recoverable premium with such additional costs. Some of the additional elements might be recoverable by the solicitors conducting the cases, but not otherwise.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Brooke, Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

Times 18-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 136, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 677, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 788, [2003] 4 All ER 508, [2003] PIQR P31, [2003] 2 Costs LR 254

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Claims Direct Test Cases SCCO 19-Jul-2002
. .
Cited – Callery v Gray (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2001
A plaintiff could recover the costs of insuring himself against the risk of having to pay the other sides costs, and finding his own costs irrecoverable (after the event or ATE insurance). The earlier case had decided that such premiums may be . .
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .

Cited by:

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

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179039

Regina v Leicester Crown Court, ex parte Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 23 Feb 2001

An order made by a judge that the prosecution pay the defence’s costs, which had been unnecessarily incurred after a failure properly to disclose evidence to them, was an order made as part of the Crown Court trial, and so was not susceptible to judicial review.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88533

Mirror Group Newspapers Plc v Maxwell and Others: ChD 30 May 2000

The settling of remuneration paid to a court-appointed receiver was not an assessment of costs in the Chancery Division, and the court fee normally payable for such an assessment did not apply.

Citations:

Times 30-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mirror Group Newspapers Plc v Maxwell and Others (No 2) ChD 15-Jul-1997
The Court reminded insolvency practitioners of fiduciary duties to creditors when refusing application for further payment on account of costs. Ferris J considered the principles applicable to fixing the remuneration of receivers of the estate of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.83756

Sarwar v Alam: CA 19 Sep 2001

Litigation had followed an accident. The claimant, a passenger, sought and won damages for personal injuries. He had taken out legal expenses insurance, and at dispute was the recovery of the cost of that insurance. He had been unaware of having the insurance and had also paid out for after the event insurance. He sought to recover the costs of the legal expenses insurance. A challenge of a judge’s award in costs only proceedings should only rarely succeed. In such questions, the danger of conflicts of interest between the various insurance companies is real, and had been provided for in the regulations. Solicitors should inspect the client’s various policies to clarify what legal expenses insurance was available. The need to provide free choice of solicitors did not override common provisions for small cases referring such matters to insurance panel solicitors. In a case where a passenger sued his driver, it was not appropriate for his choice of solicitor to be determined by the defendant’s insurers, and after the event legal expenses insurance was a proper and reasonable expense and should be recoverable.

Judges:

Judge Halbert, District Judge Wallace

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1401, [2002] RTR 12, [2001] 4 All ER 541, [2002] 1 WLR 125, [2002] 1 Costs LR 37, [2002] Lloyd’ Rep IR 126, [2002] PIQR P15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, Civil Procedure Rules 44.12A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Callery v Gray (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2001
A plaintiff could recover the costs of insuring himself against the risk of having to pay the other sides costs, and finding his own costs irrecoverable (after the event or ATE insurance). The earlier case had decided that such premiums may be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Damages, Costs, Legal Professions, Insurance

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166184

Leyvand v Barasch and Others: ChD 16 Mar 2000

In a partnership dispute the defendants sought an order for security for costs against the claimant, saying that he was ordinarily resident abroad. It was held that under the new regime such an order would not follow as a matter of course. The sole test was what was the just in the particular case. The existence of assets within the jurisdiction was relevant, and in this case the claimant had lived for a long time here, and had substantial assets here, and such an order was unnecessary.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Mar-2000, Times 23-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83057

Nationwide Building Society v Various Solicitors: ChD 20 Jul 1999

The case draws a distinction in group and consolidated actions between costs incurred on the general points which have been common to the parties and which brought the actions together and costs incurred in dealing with matters specific to the separate particular matters which had been brought together.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Sep-1999, [1999] 20 July Unreported

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pepper (UK) Ltd (T/A Engage Credit) v Fox (P/A Barry Fox, Solicitors) ChNI 14-Jan-2016
Application by Pepper (UK) Ltd t/a Engage Credit against Emma Jane Fox practising as Barry Fox, Solicitors for the delivery up of all papers, documents and title deeds in the possession and custody of the Solicitors and belonging to the plaintiff . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.84231

Peer International Corporation and others v Termidor Music Publishers and others: CA 23 Nov 2007

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1308

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Peer International Corporation and Others v Termidor Music Publishers Ktd and Another ChD 11-Dec-2002
The claimant company had acquired the copyrights to the works of several Cuban musicians. A law later passed by Cuba in 1960 had allowed the musicians to re-assign their copyrights.
Held: A title to property which had been given by English law . .
See Also – Peer International Corp and others v Termidor Music Publishers Ltd and Another ChD 25-May-2005
The claimants sought declarations as to the ownership of copyrights to music fom Cuba. Many witnesses would be required to give evidence from Cuba. Attempts to take evidence by video link from Cuba had failed. It was suggested that the judge might . .
See Also – Peer International Corporation and others v Termidor Music Publishers Ltd and others ChD 16-Nov-2006
Claim for English copyright of Cuban musical scores. . .
See Also – Peer International Corporation Southern Music Publishing Company Inc Peermusic (UK) Limited v Termidor Music Publishers Limited Termidor Musikverlag Gmbh and Co Kg -And-Editoria Musical De Cuba CA 30-Jul-2003
Peer sought declarations that they were the owners, or licensees, of the UK copyright in musical works composed by Cuban nationals, relying on assignments in writing by the composers and in some instances by their heirs. The defendants claimed under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.261954

Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others: ChD 29 Nov 2016

Application by the Defendants for security for costs.

Judges:

Nugee J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3065 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 27-Jul-2016
The claimants alleged several torts had been involved in a substantial fraud on them by means of a funding loan. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Holyoake v Candy and Another QBD 24-Jan-2017
The claimant sought to have access to his personal information held by the defendant. The defendant relied upon the legal professional privilege exemption. . .
See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 27-Feb-2017
Applications for further disclosure on the grounds of collateral waiver. . .
See Also – Candy and Others v Holyoake and Another CA 28-Feb-2017
Appeal against grant of ‘notification injunction’ . .
See Also – Candy v Holyoake and Others QBD 2-Mar-2017
Mr Candy claimed remedies for what he alleged were completed or threatened wrongs in the form of breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’) against five defendants, one of whom had filmed . .
See Also – Candy v Holyoake and Others (No 2) QBD 22-Nov-2017
. .
See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 21-Dec-2017
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.571985

Haigh v Westminster Magistrates Court and Others: Admn 8 Dec 2017

The Claimant sought judicial review of an order made against him for payment of defence wasted costs after he withdrew his private prosecution against the defendants. The claimant said that he had been dilatory in his claim.
Held: ‘wasted costs proceedings are ancillary to the substantive proceedings (in this case the substantive application for judicial review). For the reasons already given, there is an onus on the applicant for a wasted costs order in particular to proceed with due expedition. The applicants in the present matter have not done that.’

Judges:

Gross LJ, Nicol J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3197 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.601437

Wallace and Another v Brian Gale and Associates (A Firm): CA 5 Mar 1998

Agreed order for payments of ‘costs of the action’ included legal fees before action but not disbursements.

Citations:

Times 05-Mar-1998, Gazette 25-Mar-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 239, [1998] Fam Law 400, [1998] 1 FLR 1091, [1997] 2 Costs LR 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Wallace and Another v Brian Gale and Associates (A Firm) CA 31-Mar-1997
Costs in action after Tomlin Order included the costs of implementing the order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90258

Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Company and Others: ComC 25 May 2001

When a claimant commenced litigating several issues, but succeeded only on some of the them, the rule allowing an award of costs to the generally successful party was not dependent upon questions of whether the party was reasonable to have raised them. The reasonableness of pursuing a point was not necessarily relevant. The sub-paragraph was distinct from other allowing issues as to the conduct of the parties. One purpose of the rules was to persuade parties to reduce the number of claims they made to encourage a reduction in the costs of litigation.

Judges:

Thomas J

Citations:

Times 25-May-2001, [2001] EWHC 500 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc; In re Latrefeers Inc; Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co and others (No 2) CA 15-Mar-2000
Possible claims against a foreign company for misfeasance, or wrongful or fraudulent trading might be sufficient to justify proceedings here to wind up a foreign registered company. A second requirement is that some person within this jurisdiction . .
Cited – PLG Research Ltd and Another v Ardon International Ltd and Others ChD 25-Nov-1994
A patent infingement claim was met by the assertion that the material covered had been disclosed before the patent had been obtained. The court was asked as to the test of whether the information in a claim had been disclosed. Aldous J said: ‘Mr. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Latvian Shipping Company and Others v Stocznia Gdanska Sa CA 21-Jun-2002
A payment condition was just that and that a failure to pay entitled the seller to terminate at common law. Rix LJ said: ‘It is established law that, where one party to a contract has repudiated it, the other may validly accept that repudiation by . .
See Also – Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc; In re Latrefeers Inc; Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co and others (No 2) CA 15-Mar-2000
Possible claims against a foreign company for misfeasance, or wrongful or fraudulent trading might be sufficient to justify proceedings here to wind up a foreign registered company. A second requirement is that some person within this jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insolvency

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89570

Stacey v Player and Another: ChD 23 Feb 2001

A party was legally aided in proceedings. A third party offered to pay his costs in interlocutory proceedings. He was successful, and the losing party appealed an order to pay his costs. He succeeded. Whilst he was legally aided, his solicitors could only receive payment from the Legal Services Commission, and the fact that someone else might have paid did not allow an order against the third party. Such an order would leave the solicitors receiving payment other than from the LSC.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 23-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 64

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89479

Spath Holme Ltd v Chairman of the Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee (No2); Curtis v Similar: QBD 2 Jan 1998

A Bill of costs could be presented even though counsel’s fee had not yet been agreed; an extension of time was properly granted.

Citations:

Times 02-Jan-1998

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 62

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Spath Holme Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee CA 9-Aug-1995
The rent assessment committee had rejected market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the subject premises, because, inter alia, they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity, and thus found that the landlord had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.89445

Regina v Lands Tribunal, Ex Parte Jafton Properties Ltd: COL 31 Jul 2000

After a tribunal application, the applicant submitted his costs for taxation. After the hearing there was further correspondence about the decision, resulting in the applicant formally objecting to the taxation. He suggested that the correspondence after the award meant that taxation had not been concluded. It was held that he was out of time. The taxation award had all the elements necessary to make it final, and the President’s refusal of extension of time was not irrational or unreasonable. The reasons were succinct, but correct.

Judges:

Langley J

Citations:

Gazette 31-Aug-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 384

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 (1996 No 1022) 52

Costs, Administrative, Land

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87117

Regina v Liverpool Magistrates Court, Ex parte Abiaka: QBD 5 Mar 1999

After a bench dismissed a matter, a later bench awarded the defendant his costs. He applied for payment but was refused on basis that it was not the same bench.
Held: It need not be the same bench to dismiss the charge and to order costs. Once justices have made a defendant’s costs order, it is not for the clerk to ignore it. If he believed it wrong in law, he should raise it again with the bench or a reconstituted bench to alter the decision or refer it to a higher court.

Citations:

Times 06-May-1999, Gazette 08-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 205

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(1)

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85371

Regina v Northallerton Magistrates, ex parte Dove: QBD 17 Jun 1999

The defendant having provided sufficient evidence of his means, a court awarding prosecution costs, where the other penalty is a fine, should not allow these to be completely disproportionate to the fine. Where a defendant failed to provide sufficient information the justices were entitled to draw reasonable inferences about what they might be. Costs orders are not to be used to punish the defendant for exercising his right to defend himself. Lord Bingham C : ‘While there is no requirement that any sum ordered by justices to be paid to a prosecutor by way of costs should stand in any arithmetical relationship to any fine imposed, the costs ordered to be paid should not in the ordinary way be grossly disproportionate to the fine’.

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ

Citations:

Times 17-Jun-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 499, [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 136

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 18

Cited by:

Cited – Interfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council Admn 23-May-2005
The defendants, operators of licensed sex shops, appealed convictions for offences under the Act. The shops had supplied videos rated R*18 by mail order from the shops. The Trading Standards Officer said this did not satisfy the requirement that . .
Cited – Brooklyn House Ltd v Commission for Social Care Inspection Admn 25-May-2006
The defendant company had been convicted of failing to keep proper drugs records in the nursing home it ran.
Held: The prosecution by the CSCI ws necessarily authorised by the CSCI. As to the issue of intention, the offences alleged were ones . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85434

In Re Sternberg Reed Taylor and Gill (A Firm): CACD 26 Jul 1999

Negligence on the part of a solicitor was capable of falling within the range of ‘unnecessary or improper act or omission’ so as to leave him open to a wasted costs order. A clerk, having stood near the place where the jury assembled, discussed the case with the defendant. A re-trial was necessary, and could easily have been avoided.

Citations:

Times 26-Jul-1999, Gazette 11-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 1870

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335) 3(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82203

Hamilton v Al-Fayed and Others (No 3): QBD 13 Jul 2001

Where a person funded another’s court action as an act of charity, it should be exceptional to order that third party to contribute to the costs of the successful opponent. Nevertheless there could be no absolute rule against such orders. There is a clear distinction between those who act in this way as pure funders, and those who funded litigation from some contractual obligation. Another relevant consideration was whether the funder had information to suggest that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success, or whether he acted as some quixotic philanthropist.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Morland

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2001, [2001] EWHC QB 389

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 4(1)

Costs, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81197

Ford v GKR Construction and Others: CA 22 Oct 1999

Where a party wished to put the other at risk of payment of costs by the making of an offer, it was vital that the other party should be made properly aware of any information available to decide on the offer. Under the new regime, it was not appropriate to hold back such information, and a party who did so risked losing his costs even if the payment in would otherwise meet the criteria. The Claimant recovered less damages than the amount of the payment into Court, but the Defendants were ordered to pay the whole of the Claimant’s costs, including those incurred after the date of the payment in.
Held: ‘the judge reaching his decision about costs is required to take into account all relevant aspects of the litigation.’ The order was justified in the circumstances of that case, in particular because of the late introduction of evidence by the Defendants which had the effect of reducing the amount of the judgment below that of the payment in. ‘Indeed, [the judge’s] judgment has served to underline [not ‘undermine’] the importance, rightly and increasingly, to be attached to civil litigation being conducted openly between the parties with the real issues between them efficiently and quickly identified and investigated without, as it now seems to me, any unfairness to these defendants in this case.’ (Woolf MR) ‘I also draw attention to the fact that the rules refer to the power of the court to make other orders and make it clear that the normal cost consequences of failing to beat the sum paid in does not apply when it is unjust that it should do so. If a party has not enabled another party to properly assess whether or not to make an offer, or whether or not to accept an offer which is made, because of non-disclosure to the other party of material matters, or if a party comes to a decision which is different from that which would have been reached if there had been proper disclosure, that is a material matter for the court to take into account in considering what orders it should make.’ Judge LJ: ‘Civil litigation is now developing into a system designed to enable the parties involved to know where they stand in reality at the earliest possible stage, and at the lowest practicable cost, so that they …. may make informed decisions about their prospects and the sensible conduct of their cases. Among other factors the judge exercising his discretion about costs should consider is whether one side or the other has, or has not, conducted litigation with those principles in mind.’

Judges:

Judge LJ, Woolf MR

Citations:

Times 05-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 All ER 802, [1999] EWCA Civ 3030

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others ChD 23-Jan-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80630

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 3): ChD 8 Jul 1999

The Civil Procedure Rules have not changed the common law rules which say that an interlocutory order for costs could not be varied by another judge sitting at first instance, except only in exceptional circumstances where it appeared for example that fraud might be involved. To do so would be for the court to act as an appellate capacity on a matter it had decided itself: ‘when the court makes an order, only in the most exceptional circumstances such as those involving fraud or the slip rule, could the court revisit the order even where it is for costs. The court cannot act as an appellate court in respect of its own orders. It is not even as if the circumstances in which I am asked to revisit the order were not contemplated at the time when the order for costs was made.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Gazette 11-Aug-1999, Times 28-Sep-1999, [1999] EWHC 834 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2) ChD 24-Mar-1999
The claimant intended to seek recovery of a very substantial sum from the defendant. On learning of the defendant’s intention to sell its assets, it sought an order freezing them.
Held: The court has the discretion to order a freezing of a . .
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Limited Admn 26-Jun-1998
The court heard an appeal by the Commissioners from the VAT Duties Tribunal that ‘Spreadable butter’ and ‘Ammix butter’ from New Zealand made and imported by the respondent are ‘manufactured directly from milk or cream’, and are not ‘recombined . .

Cited by:

See also – Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No.4) ChD 18-Oct-1999
. .
See Also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd) CA 17-Aug-2000
When an appeal is lodged in a VAT dispute, the discretion as to whether to require the appellant to lodge security for costs in the appeal, was a decision exclusively to be decided by the tribunal itself. A decision as to such security could not be . .
Cited – CS v ACS and Another FD 16-Apr-2015
Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires
W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79364

Bunzl v Martin Bunzl International Ltd and Others: ChD 3 Aug 2000

Security for costs had been ordered against a Swiss resident claimant. Although Switzerland is not in the EU or in the EEA and therefore rules against discrimination against nationals of member states did not apply, Switzerland was still a signatory to the Brussels and Lugano Conventions for enforcement of judgments. The discretion to require security for costs was slightly wider a regards a Swiss national, but the court should still general follow the rule in Fitzgerald. Orders for security for costs against nationals of other EU member states were discriminatory.

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2000, Gazette 03-Aug-2000

European, Costs, International

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78741

British Waterways Board v Norman: QBD 11 Nov 1993

A solicitor cannot claim payment from the other party of costs he would not ask his own client to pay. An implied contingency agreement with his client could defeat a claim for payment of costs from the other party. There was never any intention on the part of the solicitors to create any liability for their own costs if the proceedings failed. It therefore followed that they sought to conduct the case on a contingency basis, such basis being contrary to public policy in any criminal trial such as this.

Citations:

Ind Summary 29-Nov-1993, Times 11-Nov-1993, [1993] 22 HLR 232

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79

Costs, Legal Professions, Criminal Practice, Housing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78651

Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth: QBD 10 May 2000

The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The discretion given to magistrates to award such costs as it feels are just and reasonable does not mean that costs should always and normally follow the event. An authority with a duty to make decisions which suffered a successful challenge to that decision, but where the fault in the decision fell short of being unreasonable, dishonest, or improper, should not normally be ordered to pay the costs. The financial effect on the parties should be assessed, but such challenges are part of the expense of running a business. Section 64 was concerned with both liability for costs and their amount. The only statutory restriction on the power of the magistrates was that they could not make an order for costs against a successful party.
Bingham CJ said: ‘The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith.’
Later he continued ‘It seems to me that the justices in this case misdirected themselves, first, in relying on a principle that costs should follow the event, that misdirection being compounded by their view that the reference in section 64 to the order being just and reasonable applied to quantum only. On the other hand, in my judgment the submissions made by Mr Blair-Gould on behalf of the local authority go too far the other way since to give effect to the principle for which he contends would deprive the justices of any discretion to view the case in the round which is in my judgment what section 64 intends.
I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised is three propositions:
1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates’ court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them.
2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection.
3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour; and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged.’

Judges:

Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000, (2000) COD 338, (2000) 164 JP 485

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1), Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 62(1)(b)

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, ex parte Chief Constable Dyfed Powys Police QBD 9-Nov-1998
The Chief Constable, on good grounds, objected to the transfer of a justices’ on-licence to a Mrs W. Mrs W appealed and the Chief Constable, having objected to the transfer, became a respondent. On the appeal Mrs W contended that, since the conduct . .
Cited – Regina v Totnes Licensing Justices, ex parte Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall QBD 28-May-1990
The court considered the award of costs in a licensing case. Roch J said: ‘There can be no doubt that in civil proceedings between litigants, be it in the High Court or county court, the principle is that costs follow the event. The winning party . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Derbyshire v Goodman and Newton Admn 2-Apr-1998
Firearms licences were granted to the two respondents, but then revoked by the Chief Constable. They appealed to the Crown Court and their appeal was allowed. The judge, however, ordered the Chief Constable to pay the costs of the two respondents, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society Admn 30-Mar-2006
The solicitor appealed being struck off. He had given a character reference in circumstances where he did not have justification for the assessment.
Held: ‘The appellant knew that Barclays Bank trusted him to provide a truthful reference. . .
Cited – Cambridge City Council v Alex Nestling Ltd QBD 17-May-2006
The council appealed an award of costs against it. The respondent had appealed against a refusal by the council to vary a premises licence for a public house with partial success, and the magistrates had awarded the respondent half its costs.
Cited – Mastercard UK Members Forum Ltd Mastercard International Inc CAT 28-Jul-2006
. .
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.

Magistrates, Local Government, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78542

Lewis v Averay (No 2): CA 1973

The defendant had been unable to obtain legal aid, and resorted to the Automobile Association which indemnified him for his costs of his successful appeal. The respondent was legally aided on the appeal and the appellant sought an order for his costs against the Law Society. The Law Society could only be liable in respect of costs which had been ‘incurred’ by the unassisted litigant. The Law Society argued that the costs had been incurred by the AA and not by the litigant.
Held: Despite it being stated by the AA’s solicitors that Mr Averay had been told that he would be indemnified in all respects by the AA so that no part of the costs of the appeal had or would have fallen on him, he was the party to the appeal, the person responsible for costs, and, if the appeal had failed, the person who would have been ordered to pay costs, and that if those costs had not been paid his goods would have been liable to execution rather than those of the AA.
Lord Denning MR found that the legal fees were incurred by Averay, said: ‘[Mr Hames] suggests that in this case the costs were not incurred by Mr Averay, but were incurred by the Automobile Association; because the Automobile Association undertook the appeal and instructed their solicitors and paid them. I cannot accept this suggestion. It is clear that Mr Averay was in law the party to the appeal. He was the person responsible for the costs. If the appeal had failed, he would be the person ordered to pay the costs. If the costs had not been paid, execution would be levied against him and not against the Automobile Association. The truth is that the costs were incurred by Mr Averay, but the Automobile Association indemnify him against the costs.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 510

Citing:

See Also – Lewis v Averay CA 22-Jul-1971
A private seller had parted with his car in return for a worthless cheque to a rogue who persuaded him that he was the well-known actor who played Robin Hood on television, and who sold it on to the defendant.
Held: ‘When two parties have come . .

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.

Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566838

Borneman v Wilson: CA 1884

The Wilsons, father and son, had acted as commercial agents of one Borneman. He began an action against them in the Chancery Division for an account of their dealings with his goods and obtained interlocutory relief on motion including an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. The Wilsons served a notice of appeal, but shortly afterwards a bankruptcy order was made against them. On 7 October 1884, a trustee in bankruptcy was appointed. On 18 October, the trustee was substituted as a defendant, apparently ex parte on the application of Borneman. On 31 October, he gave notice abandoning the appeal. He then entered an appearance in the substantive proceedings and called for a statement of claim. Borneman applied for an order against the trustee requiring him to pay the costs of the appeal which he had incurred before receipt of the notice of abandonment.
Held: The order was made. notwithstanding the trustee’s prompt and express abandonment of the appeal, by appearing and calling for a statement of claim in the Chancery proceedings he had adopted the action, and that meant the entire action including the appeal.
Bowen LJ said that the trustee: ‘cannot adopt part of the action and leave out the rest.’

Judges:

Bowen and Fry LJJ

Citations:

(1884) 28 Ch D 53

Cited by:

Adopted – School Board for London v Wall Brothers CA 1891
. .
Cited – Trustee of Property of Vickery (a Bankrupt) v Modern Security Systems Limited CA 15-Oct-1997
A trustee in bankruptcy will be treated as the party if he has in fact adopted the proceedings by conducting the litigation, even if there has been no formal substitution . .
Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566481

School Board for London v Wall Brothers: CA 1891

Judges:

Lord Esher MR and Lopes and Kay LJJ

Citations:

(1891) 8 Morr 202

Citing:

Adopted – Borneman v Wilson CA 1884
The Wilsons, father and son, had acted as commercial agents of one Borneman. He began an action against them in the Chancery Division for an account of their dealings with his goods and obtained interlocutory relief on motion including an injunction . .

Cited by:

Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Insolvency

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566482

In re Bluck, Ex parte Bluck: 1887

The discretionary character of a costs order meant that it was not even a contingent liability until the order had actually been made

Citations:

(1887) 57 LT 419

Cited by:

Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.537712

In re A Debtor (No 68 of 1911): 1911

Citations:

[1911] 2 KB 652

Cited by:

Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.537713

Case XXII 10 Jac 10 Co 115 B, 117 B, Pitfold’s Case Damages, Count: 1220

In trespass the plaintiff declares to 40l damages ; upon not guilty pleaded by the defendant, a verdict gives 49l damages with costs of suit to the plaintiff ; the plaintiff releases 9l. Of the damages, and has judgment for the 40l. damages, with the costs. Damages are for the wrong done before the writ purchased. Costs are pro expensis litis.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 57, (1220-1623) Jenk 288, (1220) 145 ER 208 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.460969

Lewis v Samuel: 17 Apr 1846

Plaintiff, an attorney, undertook a prosecution for perjury on defendant’s behalf, and agreed not to charge him full costs, except money out of pocket. He disbursed 105 pounds towards carrying on the proceedings, but, by negligence, preferred a defective indictment, and, in consequence, the prosecution failed. Held that he could not recover against defendant for the disbursements. Defendant, in the course of the proceedings, advanced plaintiff 100 1. for carrying them on ; and he applied it accordingly. Held, that, in an action by plaintiff for professional charges and disbursements, defendant could not set off’ the 100 pounds. as money received by plaintiff to his use.

Citations:

[1846] EngR 543, (1846) 8 QB 685, (1846) 115 ER 1031

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.302438

Clark v Malpas: 13 Jan 1863

The cost of bridging up witnesses for cross-examination in Court allowed, in a taxation between party and party, although they had not been actually cross-examined. Shorthand writer’s notes of the Cross-examination of witnesses in Court allowed, but costs of his notes of the judgment disallowed, on a taxation between party arid party.

Citations:

[1863] EngR 107, (1862-1863) 31 Beav 554, (1863) 54 ER 1253

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Clark v Malpas 25-Apr-1862
The court found a contract to be an unconscionable bargain where a poor and illiterate man was induced to enter into a transaction of an unusual nature, without proper independent advice, and in great haste; and the resulting transaction has been, . .
See Also – Clark v Malpas 2-Jul-1862
A purchase from an illiterate poor man, who was ill at the time, set aside, the price being inadequate, the vendor having no professorial advice, and the transaction being completed in great haste and on terms unduly disadvantageous to him. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.282762

Anderson v Hyde and Others: CANI 2 May 1996

The defendant company was wound up after the receiver had been appointed and the liquidator declined to take over the defence to the action. The judge had refused an application for a third party costs order against the receivers.
Held: Had the defence been taken over by the liquidator the costs of the claimant would have ranked in priority to the claims of ordinary unsecured creditors, and it would not be just and equitable for a receiver to be able to defend the action without any liability for costs whatever the outcome. A receiver of a company taking over the defence of a case is liable in costs as a party, but is entitled to an indemnity.

Citations:

Times 02-May-1996, [1996] 2 BCLC 144

Cited by:

Cited – Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others CA 17-May-2007
The owner had agreed to sell a long lease of an apartment to the defendant. Part of the price was to be by way of set off of an existing debt, but ths was not set out in the contract. The claimant bought the land and the benfit of the contract from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Northern Ireland, Costs

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77787

Cambridge City Council v Alex Nestling Ltd: QBD 17 May 2006

The council appealed an award of costs against it. The respondent had appealed against a refusal by the council to vary a premises licence for a public house with partial success, and the magistrates had awarded the respondent half its costs.
Held: The appellant had not acted unlawfully, but had acted conscientously and properly. The magistrates had merely reached a different conclusion. The otherwise normal rule that costs follow the event did not apply in such cases.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Toulson J

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2006

Statutes:

Licensing Act 2003 181

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth QBD 10-May-2000
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs, Licensing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244195

Regina v Shrewsbury Coroner’s Court ex parte British Parachute Association: QBD 21 Sep 1987

Coroners are forbidden by the rules to make recommendations to a jury as to their verdict. Despite the fact that the coroner was represented at the appeal, the court refused to make any order for costs against the coroner. This was not a case where they could express strong disapproval of the coroner, there being no special circumstances .

Judges:

Lloyd LJ and Mann J

Citations:

(1987) 152 JPR 123, Times 21-Sep-1987

Statutes:

Coroners Rules 1984 (1984 No 552) 36(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.194541

UCB Bank Plc v Dundas and Wilson: SCS 1990

It would not be competent for the Court of Session to restrict the pursuers’ entitlement to a fraction or percentage of the sums brought out as being payable in terms of the accounts, after they had been taxed by the Auditor.

Citations:

1990 1 SLT 90

Cited by:

Cited – Free and others v British Steel Plc and Another SCS 18-Jul-2003
(Outer House) The pursuer had sought damages from the defender, but failed to submit the claim for expenses. The defenders said they were prejudiced by the delay.
Held: ‘Comparing the prejudice the pursuers would suffer, were the motion to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184713

British Cash and Parcel Conveyors Ltd v Lamson Store Service Co Ltd: 1908

The court explained the law underlying the civil and criminal penalties for the maintenance of an action by third parties: ‘It is directed against wanton and officious intermeddling with the disputes of others in which the [maintainer] has no interest whatever, and where the assistance he renders to one or the other party is without justification or excuse.’

Judges:

Fletcher-Moulton LJ

Citations:

[1908] 1 KB 1006

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Factortame Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (No 8) CA 3-Jul-2002
A firm of accountants had agreed to provide their services as experts in a case on the basis that they would be paid by taking part of any damages awarded. The respondent claimed that such an agreement was champertous and unlawful.
Held: The . .
Cited – Giles v Thompson, Devlin v Baslington (Conjoined Appeals) HL 1-Jun-1993
Car hire companies who pursued actions in motorists’ names to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle after an accident, from negligent drivers, were not acting in a champertous and unlawful manner. Lord Mustill said: ‘there exists in . .
Cited – Sibthorpe and Morris v London Borough of Southwark CA 25-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the extent to which the ancient rule against champerty prevents a solicitor agreeing to indemnify his claimant client against any liability for costs which she may incur against the defendant in the litigation in which the . .
Cited – Simpson v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust CA 12-Oct-2011
The court was asked whether it was possible to assign as a chose in action a cause of action in tort for damages for personal injury, and if so under what circumstances it was possible.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant did not have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.181095

B Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care: EAT 9 Mar 2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/125/97

Citing:

Cited – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
See Also – Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care EAT 26-Jun-1998
. .
See Also – Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care CA 17-Feb-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.171769

Money v Money: 28 Nov 1853

Arches Court of Canterbury -In a matrimonial suit, the husband retained one counsel only, and the wife’s proctor, conceiving she could not claim the privilege of two, also retained one only, but for the hearing was induced to retain a second The costs thereof being allowed upon taxation, the proctor for the husband objected to the Registrar’s report.
Held that the ordinary. practice of the Court was to have two counsel on each side; that a wife was primai facie therefore entitled thereto, arid that the special circumstances of the present case dld not afford sufficiient ground for exception.

Citations:

[1853] EngR 1040, (1853) 1 Sp Ecc and Ad 117, (1853) 164 ER 68

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Ecclesiastical, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.295026

Thompson v Hudson: 3 Nov 1864

A judgment creditor, whose debt had been satisfied but who had not entered satisfaction on the rolls, was made a Defendant to a foreclosure suit. He disclaimed. Held, that he was not entitled to his costs, in consequence of his negligence in not entering up satisfaction of his judgment,

Judges:

Sir John Romilly MR

Citations:

[1864] EngR 699 (A), (1864) 34 Beav 107

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.282413

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (2): QBD 22 Jun 1993

The introduction of a Standard Fees Criminal Legal Aid regime did not require prior consultation with the Law Society. The rules had been imposed in accordance with the words of the enabling statute.

Citations:

Independent 22-Jun-1993, Times 25-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1988 34

Judicial Review, Costs, Legal Aid, Legal Professions

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.163155

Sony Music Entertainment Inc and another v Prestige Records Ltd and another: ChD 17 Feb 2000

On a case management hearing, the defendants made admissions on which judgment was entered. The master reserved but later awarded costs. The defendants appealed against the costs order saying that the claimants had proceeded unnecessarily aggressively and had failed to disclose evidence in a timely way. The appeal took effect as a rehearing. Intellectual property cases should be subject to the same overriding objectives as in other cases. In this case the order was correct. An appeal to a High Court judge against an order for costs, was a rehearing, and such a judge was free to exercise his discretion accordingly. Where however the issue related to something specifically within the knowledge of the first instance judge such as the proportionality of the costs to the matter in cause this was to be disturbed only rarely. That the award was made on what was essentially a case management conference should not make a difference of principle.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Feb-2000, Times 02-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89399

Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others: HL 25 May 1995

There had been an application in 1986 for planning permission for a shopping centre in Trafford. There were two public enquiries, followed, as public policy changed by further representations. The plaintiff complained that the eventual decision letter was defective in failing to deal with issues of urban regeneration, and with reservation of areas for industrial use.
Held: The Secretary of State had to state his reasons ‘in sufficient detail to enable the reader to know what conclusion he had reached on the principal important controversial issues. To require him to refer to every material consideration, however insignificant, and to deal with every argument, however peripheral would be to impose and unjustifiable burden.’ In this case, though the decision letter was open to criticism, it had achieved the necessary standard and stood.
Lord Lloyd said: ‘In all questions to do with costs, the fundamental rule is that there are no rules. Costs are always in the discretion of the court, and a practice, however widespread and longstanding, must never be allowed to harden into a rule.’

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chievley, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Steyn

Citations:

Times 25-May-1995, Ind Summary 10-Jul-1995, (1995) 71 P and CR 309, (1995) 1 WLR 1176

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others No 2 HL 17-Jul-1995
The applicants had been successful in their appeal against a refusal of planning permission. The Secretary of State had awarded himself and the applicants their costs against the Council. The Council asked the House to give guidance on the . .
Appeal from – Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council and Others v Secretary of State for Environment and Others CA 4-Aug-1994
A decision maker can take a preliminary view of a matter provided that he continues to keep an open mind. . .
Cited – Hope v Secretary of State for the Environment 1975
. .

Cited by:

See also – Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others No 2 HL 17-Jul-1995
The applicants had been successful in their appeal against a refusal of planning permission. The Secretary of State had awarded himself and the applicants their costs against the Council. The Council asked the House to give guidance on the . .
Cited – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
Cited – Hurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Costs, Administrative

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78475

A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees): FD 15 Nov 2000

An application for maintenance pending suit could properly be made, to include payment on account of the legal costs of pursuing the action. Such legal expense were of a recurring, and income type nature. Maintenance was not confined to the day to day living expenses of an applicant. In the absence of a statutory definition, there was neither any case law definition which would preclude such expenses. Without such an order, the impecunious wife would be unable to progress in the single issue which dominated her life.

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2000, Gazette 16-Nov-2000, [2001] 1 FLR 377

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 22

Cited by:

Cited – McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour CA 7-Jul-2004
Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.77586

Aaron v Shelton: 2004

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.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1162 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd ChD 31-Jul-2009
The court was asked ‘Where a claimant has picked up one or more costs orders in its favour on the way to a trial, but fails very badly at the trial (for example due to exaggeration), can the costs judge assess those costs at nil on the footing that . .
See Also – Aaron v Shelton SCCO 24-May-2004
. .
See Also – Aaron v Shelton SCCO 24-May-2004
. .
Cited – Northstar Systems Ltd and others v Fielding and others; Ultraframe (UK) Ltd and Others v Fielding and Others (No 2) CA 6-Dec-2006
The parties had disputed ownership of intellectual property rights. The court had found certain parties dishonest. The judge had found the successful defendants honest and adjusted the costs order in their favour. The claimants appealed.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.247886

G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs): FD 2003

The court considered the argument that a wife’s maintenance pending suit should be limited to her reasonable needs: ‘I do not accept that argument for the following reasons. The purpose of the 1970 Act was to change statutory provisions that were outdated and inadequate and to make a new start. Although the word ‘maintenance’ was used in both SS1 and 6 of 1970 Act (now SS22 and 27 of the MCA 1973) there are changes between section 6 of the 1970 Act (section 27 of the MCA 1973 and its predecessors and the word ‘maintenance’ is not used in the predecessors to section 1 of the 1970 Act (section 22 of the MCA 1973). The subsequent amendments to section 27 of the MCA 1973 confirm or clarify that ‘maintenance’ was not used by Parliament to refer to the old common law duty of a husband to maintain his wife. The report (read alone and together with the Working Paper) supports the conclusion that ‘maintenance’ was not used by Parliament to refer to the old common law duty of a husband to maintain his wife.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

(2003) 2 FCR 339

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25, Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970

Cited by:

Cited – McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour CA 7-Jul-2004
Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.198587

Fairfax (John) and Sons v E C de Witt and Co: CA 1958

Citations:

[1958] 1 QB 323

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Overruled – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.193433

Hicks v Russell Jones and Walker: 27 Oct 2000

Judges:

Robert Walker LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 27 October 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hill v Bailey ChD 25-Nov-2003
Costs orders had been made against each party in favour of the other. One was legally aided.
Held: Though the legally aided party was entitled to some protection against enforcement of an order for costs, he was not protected against the other . .
Cited – Sonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190232

Davies v Davies: CA 2000

The wife had objected to the instruction by her former husband of a solicitor who had been instructed by her some seven years previously. She withdrew her objection, but the court now considered an appeal as regards costs.
Held: The court considered the possible subconscious influence on a lawyer having acted before for a party.

Judges:

Sir Stephen Brown P, Robert Johnson J

Citations:

[2000] 1 FLR 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) HL 16-Dec-1998
Conflicts of Duty with former Client
The House was asked as to the duties of the respondent accountants (KPMG). KPMG had information confidential to a former client, the appellant, which might be relevant to instructions which they then accepted from the Brunei Investment Agency, of . .

Cited by:

Cited – ZS v FS (Application To Prevent Solicitor Acting) FD 24-Oct-2017
Discosure of Confidences must be at risk
H sought to restrain W’s solicitors from acting. The firm was one of six firms approached to consider representing H, and he now said that certain matters had been diviluged to the firm.
Held: The legal principles were clear, and it was for H . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.599588

In Re C (Legal Aid: Preparation of Bill of Costs): CA 2001

The appellant argued that the Costs Practice Direction, supplementing Parts 43-48 of the CPR, had the same force in law as the Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1991; and that they impliedly amended or repealed them in so far as they were inconsistent.
Held: The argument was rejected. Hale LJ said: ‘Unlike the Lord Chancellor’s orders under his ‘Henry VIII’ powers, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 themselves and the 1991 Remuneration Regulations, the Practice Directions are not made by Statutory Instrument. They are not laid before Parliament or subject to either the negative or positive resolution procedures in Parliament. They go though no democratic process at all, although if approved by the Lord Chancellor he will bear ministerial responsibility for them to Parliament. But there is a difference in principle between delegated legislation which may be scrutinised by Parliament and ministerial executive action. There is no ministerial responsibility for Practice Directions made for the Supreme Court by the Heads of Division. As Professor Jolowicz says . . ‘It is right that the court should retain its power to regulate its own procedure within the limits set by statutory rules, and to fill in gaps left by those rules; it is wrong that it should have power actually to legislate’.’

Judges:

Hale LJ

Citations:

[2001] 1 FLR 602

Statutes:

Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1991, Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Floyd and Another v Legal Services Commission QBD 28-Apr-2010
The claimant had succeeded in an action against her legally aided opponent, but then delayed in making her claim for costs against the respondent. The costs judge said that the CPR did not apply, and that he had no discretion to extend the time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Costs

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.408768

Mercer v Oldham: QBD 1984

The respondent had recovered his car from the police via a complaint to the magistrates, having lent it to his brother-in-law, who had used it in a burglary. The magistrates found that he had not known of the intended use. The police had taken no steps to ascertain his state of knowledge, and the magistrates ordered the police to pay his costs. The police appealed by case stated against the order for costs.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The conduct of the police justified the order. In the course of judgment the Court said: ‘In matters of this kind, it was of the utmost assistance to the justices that the police should be present at court, both to indicate whether or not they objected to the order being made, and to test the evidence of a claimant. In such circumstances, the justices would normally make no order for costs. But they did have a discretion, and if they considered that the police had gone beyond the usual rule merely assisting the justices, and actively opposed the order, then there was no reason why the justices should not, in the exercise of their discretion, order the police to pay costs. That was clearly what happened in the present case.’

Citations:

[1984] Crim LR 232

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Police, Costs

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.401966

Regina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Association of Darlington Tax Owners and Another (No 2): QBD 14 Apr 1994

An unincorporated association although not a legal person with the capacity to sue in judicial review, may still suffer an order for costs.

Citations:

Times 14-Apr-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Parte Association of Darlington Taxi Owners and Darlington Owner Drivers Association QBD 13-Jan-1994
The court should distinguish the concepts of locus standi and capacity when considering applications for judicial review. An unincorporated association is not a legal person and may not seek Judicial Review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Company

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.86506

National Justice Compania Naviera Sa v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (No 2): CA 15 Oct 1999

An English court does have power to order a non-resident non-party to contribute to the costs of a case, where that party was domiciled in a convention country. Here the third party was alleged to be the alter ego of the actual party. There was no requirement to have sued that third party first under any convention entered into by the UK.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Oct-1999, Times 15-Oct-1999, Gazette 03-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 603, [2000] 1 All ER 37, [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 673, [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 129, [2000] CP Rep 13, [2000] CLC 22, [2000] 1 Costs LR 37, [2000] IL Pr 490, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep IR 230, (1999) 149 NLJ 1561, Independent 20-Oct-1999, Independent 22-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51, Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ComC 30-Jul-1999
An application to make a non party liable for costs under section 51(1) Supreme Court Act 1981 is not a claim within Title II of the Brussels Convention, for it is an incidental part of the substantive proceedings already before the Court. It makes . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Costs

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84185

Jones v Jones: CA 11 Nov 1999

A plaintiff in a personal injury action who did not accept a payment in, and continued, took the risk of costs inherent in such a continuance. She was entitled to costs up to the date of payment in only, and not up to a later date when different medical evidence came to be relied upon.

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82608

Greening and Another (Trading As Automania) v Williams: CA 10 Dec 1999

In order to establish a plea of tender before, the defendant had, in addition to making the actual payment into court, also to serve on the claimant the formal notice required under the rules to say that the payment had been made. In the absence of such, he achieved no protection form an award of costs. Notification by means of the pleadings in the action was not sufficient.

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Ord 18 R 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81012

Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney: ChD 27 May 2002

The landlord sought an injunction against the defendant. The defendant countered, relying upon sec 2(1).
Held: The remedy provided by the section was limited to the award of damages. It could not, therefore, be used to defend an action for an injunction. Whilst he might be entitled in equity to repudiate the lease, he could not repudiate only part of the lease. The landlord might e criticised for its earlier conduct of the case, but rule 44 was concerned with the behaviour of the parties in conducting the litigation itself, and the rule could not be used to overturn the costs consequences because of misbehaviour outside the litigation.

Judges:

Mr Justice Park

Citations:

Times 26-Jun-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002

Statutes:

Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1), Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Torts – Other, Equity, Costs

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.174083

Lady Mary Topham v Duke Of Portland: 20 Jun 1863

Commonlii The costs of an application to stay the execution of a decree pending an appeal to the House of Lords were to be paid by the applicant.

Citations:

[1863] EngR 721, (1863) 1 De G J and S 603, (1863) 46 ER 239

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Lady Mary Topham v The Duke Of Portland 30-Jun-1862
The donee of a trust power cannot execute it for an object foreign to purposes for which it was intended, and therefore an ordinary power in a marriage settlement of appointment amongst the children cannot be made subservient to the accomplishment . .

Cited by:

See Also – Duke of Portland v Topham CA 1864
Commonlii The donee of a power of appointing portions among his younger children appointed a double share to a younger child without previous communication with him. But it appeared from the instructions for the . .
See Also – The Duke Of Portland And Others v Lady Mary E Topham And Others HL 6-Apr-1864
A power, to be validly executed, must be executed without any indirect object. The donee of the power must give the property which is the subject of it, as property, to the person to whom he affects to give it.
A created a power to appoint a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.283376

In re Leighton’s Conveyance: CA 1937

Rules of court provided that a person suing as a poor person should not be ordered to pay costs.
Held: The Order did not prevent the mortgagee adding to her security her costs in an action brought by the mortgagor suing as a poor person. Lord Wright MR said: ‘ Now what the learned judge has done is to deny the ordinary right of a mortgagee to add to his security all costs, charges and expenses reasonably and properly incurred in ascertaining or defending his rights, or in recovering the mortgage debt. It is not really a matter which arises in connection with the awarding of costs. If it had been a question of the awarding of costs as between parties to the action the learned judge could not have ordered Mrs. Priestman to pay any costs, because she was proceeding as a poor person, and under the terms of Order XVI r. 28 ‘no poor person shall be liable to pay costs to any other party’; but that is not the question at all. What the learned judge has done here has been to do something entirely different from ordering ordinary costs in the action : he has made an order which has the effect, if it stands, of depriving the mortgagee in this case . . . of the ordinary rights of a mortgagee. The mortgagee here was compelled to defend her rights, or at least cannot be said to have acted unreasonably in seeking to defend her rights.’
Romer LJ said: ‘Where a mortgagee’s title is attacked by somebody who is a stranger to the mortgagee, the circumstances in which the mortgagee is entitled to add his proper costs in defending his title to the mortgagee’s security are stated by Sir W. Page-Wood, V.C., in Parker v. Watkins (John 133, 137) where he said this: ‘ I quite agree that, where a mortgagee has been put to expense in defending the title to the estate, the defence being for the benefit of all parties, he is entitled to charge those expenses against the estate; but if some litigious person chooses to contest his (the mortgagee’s) title to the mortgage, that should not affect the parties interested in the equity of redemption, unless they can be shown to have concurred in or assisted the litigation.”

Judges:

Lord Wright MR, Romer LJ

Citations:

[1937] 1 Ch 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Saunders (Executrix of the Will of Rose Maude Gallie, Deceased) v Anglia Building Society HL 9-Nov-1970
The Appellant had signed an assignment of her lease in favour of her nephew. She said she thought the effect of it would protect her right to continue to live in the house. She now appealed rejection of her plea of non est factum.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Land

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.266401

General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel and Another: QBD 19 Jul 1999

The new Civil Procedure Rules were ultra vires and invalid insofar as they purported to remove any right of a solicitor’s client to assert his right of confidence as against his solicitor. The solicitor was therefore unable in this case to defend himself against a wasted costs order, but the court could allow for the refusal of the client to waive his privilege.
Toulson J said: ‘Article 6 gives every person a right to a fair trial, but I do not accept that it follows as a general proposition that this gives a right to interfere with another person’s right to legal confidentiality. If that were generally so, the right to legal confidentiality recognised by the court would be useless, since its very purpose is to enable a person to communicate with his lawyer secure in the knowledge that such communications cannot be used without his consent to further another person’s cause. In the absence of a general right under Article 6 to make use of another person’s confidential communications with his lawyer, I do not see how solicitors have a particular right to do so under that Article for the purpose of defending a wasted costs application.’

Judges:

Toulson J

Citations:

Times 12-Aug-1999, Gazette 11-Aug-1999, [1999] EWHC 832 (Comm), [1999] Lloyds Rep PN 919, [1999] 2 Costs LR 10, [2000] 1 WLR 272, [1999] 3 All ER 673, [2000] UKHRR 273, [1999] PNLR 852, [2000] HRLR 54, [1999] CPLR 425

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Act 1997, Civil Procedure Rules 1998 No 1312

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Professional Negligence, Human Rights

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.80789

C and H Engineering v F Klucznic and Sons Limited: 1992

It is for a defendant to make a clear and unambiguous offer and nothing short of this will provide the protection against costs which is sought.

Citations:

[1992] FSR 667

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Costs

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186058

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.

Judges:

Cummin-Bruce LJ

Citations:

[1984] FLR 114

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Family, Costs

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186067

KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council: CA 27 Apr 2005

(Practice Note) The solicitor appealed an order which made the success fee payable different at different stages of the court action.
Held: The court had no power to make such an order. To the extent that the CPR might suggest otherwise they were wrong.
‘a practice direction has no legislative force. Practice directions provide invaluable guidance to matters of practice in the civil courts, but in so far as they contain statements of the law which are wrong they carry no authority at all.’

Judges:

Brooke VP CA, Rix, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2005] 1 WLR 2657, Times 16-May-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 475, [2005] 4 Costs LR 600

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 44.8(2), Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58, Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 (2000 No 602)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – N v ACCG and Others SC 22-Mar-2017
The local authority and a young man’s parents disputed his continued care, he having substantial incapacities. The parents wanted assistance caring for him on visits home. The LA declined to fund that support. The LA now argued that the CoP had not . .
Cited – In re NY (A Child) (Reunite International and others intervening) SC 30-Oct-2019
The father had applied for a summary order requiring the return of the daughter to Israel. The Court was asked to consider whether the Court of Appeal, having determined that such an order could not be granted under the Hague Convention on the Civil . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224477

Costello v Corlett: 5 Feb 1828

A Defendant, who has been holden to bail in an excessive sum, can only recover his costs under 43 G. 3, c 46, s 8, in the court in which the action is brought ; where, therefore, the action was brought in the Palace Court, and removed into the Common Pleas, the Conimon Pleas refused to order his costs to be taxed.

Citations:

[1828] EngR 375, (1828) 4 Bing 474, (1828) 130 ER 850

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.323139

HB v PB: FD 9 Jul 2013

Claim for costs against third party local authority, Croydon LBC after four day private law fact finding hearing. F said that M had fabricated illnesses both in herself and the child leading to the LA being asked to prepare a report. That report failed to allow for established guidance on the topic, leading to the abandonment of a listing to hear the case.
Held: ‘The failings outlined above (and, in fairness, to some extent conceded by Mr. Calway) comfortably carry this case over the ‘exceptionality’ threshold. The consequence of the Local Authority’s failure to comply appropriately with the direction of the Court was the inevitable abandonment of the fact-finding hearing in December 2012, the requirement for a further directions hearing, and the consequent delay (with its financial and emotional cost to the parties) in re-listing it ‘

Judges:

Cobb J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1956 (Fam), [2013] PTSR 1579, [2016] 1 FLR 92, [2015] Fam Law 371, [2013] 5 Costs LR 738, [2013] 3 FCR 318, [2013] Fam Law 1258

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989, Family Procedure Rules 2010 28.1, Senior Courts Act 1981 51(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
Cited – Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson CA 4-May-1993
A section 51 non-party costs application should not be used as a substitute for the pursuit of a related cause of action against the non-party in ordinary proceedings. Nine rules were set out for allowing a costs order against someone who is not a . .
Cited – A and S (Children) v Lancashire County Council FD 17-Apr-2013
The children applied for their costs. They had been made subject of freeing orders on the application of the respondent, but had then successfully appealed against the orders, saying that their human rights had been infringed. . .
Cited – Northampton Health Authority v The Official Solicitor and the Governors of St Andrews Hospital 1994
. .
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 – London Borough of Sutton v Davis (Costs) (No 2) 1994
In cases involving children costs awarded against one parent or another are exceptional since the court is anxious to avoid the situation where a parent may feel ‘punished’ by the other parent which will reduce co-operation between them. This will . .
Cited – Kelly v South Manchester Health Authority 1997
A costs order was sought against the Legal Aid Board.
Thomas J. said: ‘In my judgment, the courts do have power in an appropriate and exceptional case to make an order in respect of costs against the board under section 51(1); the role of the . .
Cited – Globe Equities Ltd v Globe Legal Services Ltd and others CA 5-Mar-1999
The defendant’s solicitors appealed an order making them liable for costs in defending an action brought by the landlord. . .
Cited – Coventry City Council v X, Y and Z (Care Proceedings: Costs: Identification of Local Authority) FD 27-Sep-2010
Order made for identification of local authority criticised in care proceedings and order for costs. . .
Cited – Providence Capitol Trustees Ltd v Ayres ChD 1996
If the Pensions Ombudsman takes part in an appeal and makes himself a party to the lis, he is at risk as to the costs of the appeal. It may be appropriate to make an application before the main hearing to settle such issues. The ombudsman will only . .
Cited – Palmer v The Estate of Kevin Palmer Deceased and others CA 6-Feb-2008
The judge had concluded that the insurers’ conduct of an unsuccessful defence was sufficiently self-motivated to make it the real defendant in all but name, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against an order that it be liable in costs as . .
Cited – Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others ChD 17-May-2007
Order for costs against a third party . .
Cited – Metalloy Supplies Ltd (In Liquidation) v MA (UK) Ltd CA 7-Oct-1996
A costs order against liquidator of company in litigation is only rarely to be given. The court should ask who is the ‘real’ party to the litigation.
Millett LJ said: ‘[An order] may be made in a wide variety of circumstances where the third . .
Cited – In re X, (Emergency Protection Orders) FD 16-Mar-2006
Within two hours of a case conference which mentioned possible removal of children, but agreed other steps, the local authority applied for an emergency protection order, and forcibly removed the child from the family.
Held: The decision . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Backhouse CA 26-Jan-2001
A non-party costs order was made against the director, because the defence to the petitions was not conducted in the bona fide belief that it was in the interests of the companies. Instead the director, who had treated the companies’ money as his . .
Cited – Goodwood Recoveries Ltd v Breen CA 19-Apr-2005
A claim against the defendant for money owed to someone else had been bought by the claimant of which Slater, a solicitor, was a director and shareholder. The claim was pursued in the name of the claimant by Slater as its solicitor and principal . .
Cited – 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 ChD 20-Oct-2004
Dr Z 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 in costs.
Peter Smith J had held that: ‘It seems to me that in the administration . .
Cited – Phillips v Symes CA 2003
Courts should be reluctant to exclude altogether evidence merely because it is written. If the purpose of the order sought was to trace assets it would be wrong to permit cross-examination which was designed to show that there had been a contempt of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Children

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.512445

Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others: ChD 17 May 2007

Order for costs against a third party

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1180 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others CA 17-May-2007
The owner had agreed to sell a long lease of an apartment to the defendant. Part of the price was to be by way of set off of an existing debt, but ths was not set out in the contract. The claimant bought the land and the benfit of the contract from . .
Cited – HB v PB FD 9-Jul-2013
Claim for costs against third party local authority, Croydon LBC after four day private law fact finding hearing. F said that M had fabricated illnesses both in herself and the child leading to the LA being asked to prepare a report. That report . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.252409

Metalloy Supplies Ltd (In Liquidation) v MA (UK) Ltd: CA 7 Oct 1996

A costs order against liquidator of company in litigation is only rarely to be given. The court should ask who is the ‘real’ party to the litigation.
Millett LJ said: ‘[An order] may be made in a wide variety of circumstances where the third party is considered to be the real party interested in the outcome of the suit … It is not, however, sufficient to render a director liable for costs that he was a director of the company and caused it to bring or defend proceedings which he funded and which ultimately failed. Where such proceedings are brought bona fide and for the benefit of the company, the company is the real plaintiff. If in such a case an order for costs could be made against a director in the absence of some impropriety or bad faith on his part, the doctrine of the separate liability of the company would be eroded and the principle that such orders should be exceptional would be nullified. The position of a liquidator is a fortiori. Where a limited company is in insolvent liquidation, the liquidator is under a statutory duty to collect in its assets. This may require him to bring proceedings. … If he brings the proceedings in the name of the company, the company is the real plaintiff and he is not. He is under no obligation to the defendant to protect his interests by ensuring that he has sufficient funds in hand to pay their costs as well as his own if the proceedings fail.’

Judges:

Millet LJ

Citations:

Times 12-Dec-1996, [1997] 1 WLR 1613, [1996] EWCA Civ 670, [1996] EWCA Civ 671, [1997] BCC 165, [1998] 1 Costs LR 85, [1997] 1 All ER 418

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd and others (No. 2) PC 21-Jul-2004
PC (New Zealand) Costs were sought against a non-party, following an earlier determination by the Board.
Held: Jurisdiction to make such an order was not complete. Where the order sought was against a . .
Cited – BE Studios Ltd v Smith and Williamson Ltd ChD 2-Dec-2005
The claimant company had failed in its action. The court was asked to make a costs order personally against the principal director of the claimant who had controlled the litigation and funded it. He responded that no impropriety had been shown on . .
Cited – Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others CA 17-May-2007
The owner had agreed to sell a long lease of an apartment to the defendant. Part of the price was to be by way of set off of an existing debt, but ths was not set out in the contract. The claimant bought the land and the benfit of the contract from . .
Cited – Lingfield Properties (Darlington) Ltd v Padgett Lavender Associates QBD 18-Nov-2008
Application for non-party costs order against litigation funder. The third party denied that he was a person against whom an order could be made, and denied his formal involvement in the companies funding the litigation.
Held: Such an order . .
Cited – Goknur v Aytacli CA 13-Jul-2021
Third Party Costs – Director of Insolvent Company
(Organic Village) The Court considered the circumstances Limited in which a director and shareholder of an insolvent company may be personally liable for some or all of that company’s costs liabilities incurred in unsuccessful litigation, pursuant . .
Cited – HB v PB FD 9-Jul-2013
Claim for costs against third party local authority, Croydon LBC after four day private law fact finding hearing. F said that M had fabricated illnesses both in herself and the child leading to the LA being asked to prepare a report. That report . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Costs

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.83673

Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 4): PatC 18 Feb 2003

The court refused to make an order for a payment of interim costs when the substantive claim for costs remained to be heard. The claimant had accepted a payment in entitling it to its costs, but now sought an interim award before the full costs could be assessed.
Any rule allowing a judge to make such an assessment could not apply where the judge had not heard the substantive claim. In this case the costs judge would be blind to the underlying issues. Application refused.

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

Times 18-Mar-2003, Gazette 17-Apr-2003, [2003] EWHC 624 (Pat), [2004] 1 WLR 1264

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd PatC 3-Oct-2000
The plaintiff alleged infringement of its European Patent in a vacuum cleaning appliance. The defendants sought its revocation on the statutory grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency, and for threats. . .
See Also – Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd PatC 5-Apr-2001
The claimant had obtained injunctive relief against the defendant for patent infringement. Only twelve months of the patent remained, and the claimants applied for an extension of the injunction twelve months beyond the patent expiry, and for other . .
See Also – Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited CA 4-Oct-2001
Hoover appealed a finding that Dyson’s patent was valid and infringed. They asserted the patent was not novel in the light of a US patent, and even so was obvious. One test was whether an application of the claimed patent would inevitably infringe . .
See Also – Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 3) ChD 21-Oct-2002
The plaintiff had accepted a payment in which was more advantageous than its own offer of settlement. It now sought costs on an indemnity rather than a standard basis. They argued that under the rule they were entitled to costs on an indemnity basis . .

Cited by:

Cited – Simms and others v The Law Society CA 12-Jul-2005
The appellant challenged intervention proceedings brought against his solicitors practice by the respondent. Following disciplinary proceedings, the Society had obtained summary judgment rejecting the application, and awarding costs. The solicitor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules, Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.180956

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 for legal costs. Despite being exonerated, the judge followed the normal practice of not awarding costs in children cases. The Court of Appeal made an order for costs, and the Authority now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There should be no exception to the general rule of not awarding costs save in case of reprehensible proceedings merely because the hearing had been a discrete fact finding hearing.
The fundamental reason for the difference from other civil proceedings was the absence of the adversarial approach. Care proceedings will usually involve allegations of misconduct. The decision to hold a split hearing was a case management one, and could not found a difference of approach. That injustice might flow where a party could not receive legal aid, was not a reason for transferring a perceived deficiency in public funding onto the local authority. The authority were acting under a public law duty to investigate allegations of child abuse in a role akin to that of a prosecuting authority.
Otherwise: Re T (Children: Care Proceedings: Serious Allegations Not Proved)

Judges:

Lord Phillips (President), Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Dyson, Lord Carnwath

Citations:

[2012] UKSC 36, UKSC 2010/0244, [2012] Fam Law 1325, [2012] 3 FCR 137, [2012] 5 Costs LR 914, [2012] PTSR 1379, [2012] WLR(D) 223, [2012] 1 WLR 2281

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, WLRD

Statutes:

Family Procedure Rules 2010 (SI 2010/2955) 1.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sutton London Borough Council v Davis (Number 2) FD 8-Jul-1994
The local authority had refused to register a childminder, who successfully appealed to the magistrates, who awarded costs in her favour. The local authority appealed against the costs order. In doing so the authority urged the court to apply, by . .
Appeal from – In re T (A Child) CA 18-Nov-2010
Paternal grandparents appealed against a refusal to make an order for costs in their favour against the local authority. The refusal was made in the course of care proceedings brought by the local authority in relation to two grandchildren. The . .
Cited – B (M) v B (R) (Note) CA 1968
The court suggested that it would have been wrong to make an order for costs in a custody dispute because it would exacerbate the feelings between the parents to the ultimate detriment of the child. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – In re J (Children) (Costs of Fact-Finding Hearing) CA 26-Oct-2009
Mother and father disputed contact. The district judge held a fact finding hearing to resolve allegations of violence made by the mother and denied by the father. Most of the mother’s allegations were held to be established and she sought the costs . .
Cited – In Re M (A Minor) (Local Authority’s Costs) FD 9-Jan-1995
The local authority applied for permission to refuse contact between two children and their parents. The magistrates refused the application and ordered the local authority to pay the father’s costs. The authority appealed.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – R v R (Costs: Child Case); In re R (a Minor) CA 5-Dec-1996
The court analysed the reasons why costs orders were generally not made in cases involving children. . .
Cited – In re X, Y, Z (Minors) FD 18-May-2011
Costs on disputed care proceedings. Local Authority acting unreasonably in disclosure failings. Baker J rejected an application for costs against a local authority by an intervener who had been wholly exonerated in a fact finding hearing that was . .
Cited – In re R (Care: disclosure: nature of proceedings) FD 2002
In care proceedings, unproved allegations of harm were abandoned, before being rejected by the court. The threshold criteria were satisfied on a different ground, namely, neglect and emotional harm.
Held: As matters stood the local authority . .
Cited – In re X, (Emergency Protection Orders) FD 16-Mar-2006
Within two hours of a case conference which mentioned possible removal of children, but agreed other steps, the local authority applied for an emergency protection order, and forcibly removed the child from the family.
Held: The decision . .
Cited – In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL 11-Jun-2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v G and Others CA 2-Aug-2011
The Council had been found to have wrongfully deprived the applicant of his liberty. They appealed now against an award of costs made against them.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge the power to depart from the usual order made under rule 157 . .
Cited – Coventry City Council v X, Y and Z (Care Proceedings: Costs: Identification of Local Authority) FD 27-Sep-2010
Order made for identification of local authority criticised in care proceedings and order for costs. . .
Cited – G v E and Others FD 21-Dec-2010
(Court of Protection) Baker J awarded costs against a local authority which had been guilty of misconduct which, he held, justified departure from the general rule. He observed: ‘Parties should be free to bring personal welfare issues to the Court . .
Cited – M v London Borough of Croydon CA 8-May-2012
The court considered the proper approach to the award of costs in judicial review proceedings.
Held: The position should be no different for litigation in the Administrative Court from what it is in general civil litigation. . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – HB v PB FD 9-Jul-2013
Claim for costs against third party local authority, Croydon LBC after four day private law fact finding hearing. F said that M had fabricated illnesses both in herself and the child leading to the LA being asked to prepare a report. That report . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.463147

Kevorkian v Burney (No 2): CA 1937

When applying for security for costs against a foreign resident plaintiff, it is first for the defendants to show that the plaintiff is resident abroad within Ord. 23, r. 1; secondly, for the plaintiff to show that he has an asset here which will remain here; and, thirdly, for the defendant to show, if he can, that the asset is worthless or not worth sufficient to cover the costs.

Judges:

Greer LJ

Citations:

[1937] 4 All ER 468

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – De Bry v Fitzgerald CA 1990
A request was made for security for costs in a large sum against a foreign resident party: ‘The more usual course might have been to order security, if security was to be ordered at all, in a relatively small sum in the first place, leaving the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.578227

Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and Another: CA 21 Jan 2016

Appeal from Order joining party for purposes of third party costs order.

Judges:

Moore-Bick VP, Lewison, Simon LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 23, [2016] CP Rep 17, [2016] 4 WLR 17, [2016] WLR(D) 25

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Limited v Todd and Todd, Bilgola Enterprises Ltd and Lambton Quay Books Ltd PC 7-Oct-2002
PC (New Zealand) The claimants asserted that the respondents had wrongly terminated their franchise licence. The agreement was subject to the New South Wales law requiring good faith, but the court had not had . .
Appeal from – Deutsche Bank Ag v Sebastian Holdings Inc and Another ComC 30-Jan-2014
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Cited – Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.559155

Forbes-Smith v Forbes-Smith and Chadwick: CA 1901

W petitioned for judicial separation. H cross-petitioned for divorce, citing C as co-respondent. The actions were consolidated, W’s petition withdrawn, and a decree absolute of divorce granted to H. A costs order was made against C. On taxation, H asked for his costs of defending W’s original suit.
Held: The consolidation of the suits was not properly so called, and H was not entitled against C to his costs of defending W’s original suit to which C was not a party. The court had no jurisdiction to make such an order, since he had not been a ‘party to the proceedings’ as required under the 1857 Act.

Citations:

[1901] P 258, [1901] LJP 61, [1901] LT 789, [1901] 50 WR 6, [1901] 17 TLR 587, [1901] 45 Sol Jo 595

Statutes:

Judicature Act 1890 5, Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Overruled – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
Cited – Earl v Earland Kyle; Earl v Earl 1926
There had been cross-petitions between H and W, and they had been consolidated by court order.
Held: The court had no jurisdiction to order the co-respondent to pay the costs of the wife’s suit since she was not a party to that petition . .
Cited – Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Family

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.193432

Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ: CA 17 May 2018

The issue raised on this appeal is the liability for costs arising out of litigation concerning the supply of defective implants for use in breast surgery, which had been manufactured by PIP. The claims were made in group litigation under a Group Litigation Order.
Held: The judge went too far in her conclusion that the uninsured claims had nothing whatsoever to do with the insured claims, because the same common issues arose in both, and Travelers were obliged under the policies (and the general law) to fund the defence of Transform’s position in relation to those common issues in all four test cases. They were, if anything, even more powerfully affected by the asymmetry or lack of reciprocity as between the uninsured claimants and Travelers in relation to costs risk.
The judge had been ‘entirely correct’ to treat the question as depending upon the twin issues of exceptionality and justice, rather than upon any particular principles applicable to non-party costs orders against insurers.

Judges:

Patten, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1099

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – XYZ v Travelers Insurance Company Ltd QBD 24-Feb-2017
Application for an order under section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981 that Travelers Insurance Company Ltd pay to the applicants the costs they incurred in their successful claims against Transform Medical Group (CS) Limited (in Administration) for . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.616337

Amand v Bradbourne: 1649

Trustee sued concerning the Trust in Chancery obtained a Dismission and had Costs paid him as in Course, but the Costs allowed him and taxed were short of his real Costs. After a Bill by the Cestuy qui Trust to have account of the Trust, on Account of his disbursements he shall be aIIowed his true and necessary Costs in the former Suit, and not be concluded, and co, and so ordered.

Citations:

[1649] EngR 2, (1649-1779) 2 Chan Cas 138, (1649) 22 ER 884 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts, Costs

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.417047

London County Council v Monks: 1958

Danckwerts J considered the powers of the court over money paid in as security: ‘The real basis of those cases seems . . to be that where the court has the fund under its own control, as in the case of a fund standing to the credit to some account of the Paymaster-General, the Paymaster-General being the officer of the High Court and all the judges of any division of the High Court being judges of that Court, the judges will enforce a High Court judgment by directing their officer to pay out the money or make a charging order on the fund in question, so that the judgment creditor shall not be defeated in regard to satisfaction of the judgment.’

Judges:

Danckwerts J

Citations:

[1959] 1 Ch 239, [1958] 3 All ER 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Common Professional Examination Board, Ex Parte Mealing-Mcclead CA 19-Apr-2000
A party was required to pay money into court before pursuing an appeal. She borrowed money for this purpose but on the express condition that it should be used for this purpose only and was not to become part of her general assets. The money was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.415919

Regina v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou: QBD 1954

The Appellant was the owner of premises which she let to another party for use as a club. The other party was charged with 10 offences relating to the supply of liquor at the premises and the Appellant was joined to show cause why the club should not be struck off the register. After the hearing, the justices were informed that the costs of the prosecution amounted to 21 guineas. They convicted the manager, fined him andpound;10 and ordered him to pay 20 guineas costs, and also ordered the appellant to pay andpound;100 costs and they ordered the club to be struck off the register.
Held: The appeal by way of motion for certiorari suceeded. Costs are to be awarded as compensation, not as punishment. The order against the Appellant was a penalty in the guise of costs.
Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘I regret that any bench of justices could have acted as these justices did. They were not imposing costs on the applicant; they were imposing a penalty on her when she had not been convicted of any offence, but had only come before the court to show cause why the premises should not be struck off the register. Under the guise of making an order for costs, the justices inflicted a penalty of andpound;100, which could only have been intended as a penalty. Since, by their order against [the manager], they had satisfied the costs of the prosecution apart from one guinea certiorari will go…’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1954] 1 All ER 406, [1954] 1 WLR 485

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Prasannan v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 25-Feb-2010
The appellant challenged an order to pay costs summarily assessed at andpound;20,000.
Held: The order was not a penalty and was within the discretion of the district judge. The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Costs

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.401963

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. If an English solicitor is properly employed in a Scottish litigation he is entitled to be remunerated for his work according to an English scale of remuneration. 2. Such remuneration is treated as part of the outlays in the account of expenses. 3. In considering the English account, the Auditor must in the first place determine which items on the account would be admissible in a Scottish party and party account. In order to do that, he may require the English account to be stated in such a form as to disclose clearly what items of work were in fact done by the English solicitors: ibid. at 1988 SC 288. At this stage the Auditor must obviously apply Scottish principles, in exactly the same way as he would when dealing with a party and party account rendered by Scottish solicitors. 4. Thereafter, the Auditor must discover what charges for the admitted items in the account are appropriate in accordance with English law and practice. The Auditor has a wide discretion as to how he goes about this task, although with an English account consulting the taxing master is an obvious step to take: ibid. at 1988 SC 288-289. At this stage, therefore, the Auditor must ascertain and apply the relevant English scale of charges.

Citations:

1988 ST 264

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238925

E C-L v DM (Child abduction: Costs): FD 11 Apr 2005

The mother had persistently made false allegations against her husband of abduction and of forgery. She had been permitted to withdraw her originating application. She appealed an order against her for costs, saying that the Convention under which the application was made contained no provision for awarding costs.
Held: Though costs orders were not normally made in such proceedings, one could be made where as here one party had misbehaved, and the other was not a person of means. The absence of an express power under the Convention was not determinative.

Judges:

Ryder J

Citations:

Times 10-May-2005

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Children

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.224769

K Zaman Ali and Co v The Lord Chancellor; (Regina v Zaka): SCCO 26 Oct 2001

This was a criminal appeal by solicitors who had submitted their bill of costs in which work was claimed at prescribed legal aid rates for grade A fee earner level, which was however accompanied by a letter, which started with the following paragraphs:
‘We are grateful for the kind extension of time granted to submit our bill of costs with the further extension allowing us to send our papers by DX on Monday 22 instant.
Enhancement is respectfully claimed in this case for the following reasons …’
No percentage enhancement however is actually mentioned in either this letter, or of course in the bill.
The Determining Officer refused to allow any enhancement, holding that what he had to consider was the bill and that any accompanying letter was a supporting document not to be read as part of the bill.
The Costs Judge affirmed the decision of the Determining Officer, but granted a certificate to allow the matter to proceed to a final appeal in the High Court.
On the facts the Judge decided the appeal against the solicitors, but he did lay down some general principles to be followed in future cases to ensure that decisions of Determining Officers were not ‘Wednesbury unreasonable’.
He apparently suggested that the Determining Officer could, in a situation such as arose here, either refer the whole bill back to the solicitors to make a proper claim to include enhancement; he could deal with it as if enhancement had been claimed; or he could make reasonable enquiries.
What seems to have been fatal to the solicitors’ appeal in this case is that they neither claimed enhancement in the bill itself, nor did they specify in the accompanying letter what rate of enhancement they were seeking. However in the light of the Judge’s comments summarised above it seems unlikely that this situation will recur.
The Judge made no order as to the costs of the appeal, although the Lord Chancellor’s Department was represented by counsel.

Judges:

Mr Justice Butterfield sitting without Assessors

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185952

Patterson v Cape Darlington and 15 other Defendants: SCCO 1 May 2001

CourtService This was an appeal by the sixteen Defendants. The Claimant had brought a claim for damages for personal injuries, namely, an asbestosis related disease sustained in consequence of his employment with some or all of the Defendants. The Claimant lived and worked in Liverpool. He was a member of the General and Municiple Boilerman’s Union and of the Liverpool and District Victims of Asbestos Support Group. This group advised him to instruct a London firm of solicitors to act for him in connection with his claim. This he did and the proceedings were brought in the Central London County Court. The case was settled. At the detailed assessment hearing of the Claimant’s Bill of Costs, the Defendants representatives challenged the use of London Solicitors and submitted that the Claimant should have instructed Liverpool solicitors and that the hourly rate should be adjusted accordingly. The Defendants had instructed solicitors in the North East of England. It was accepted by Counsel for both sides that an appeal from the Master is limited to a review of his decision and that on appeal it had to be shown by the Appellant that the Costs Judge’s decision was either wrong in law or was unreasonable.
Held: On the facts of this case the decision was not wrong in law, and it was not unreasonable. The Claimant had been advised by both his Union and the Liverpool and District Victims of Asbestosis Support Group to use a particular firm of solicitors whose offices were in London. The Judge stressed that on the facts of this case he could not find that the decision of the Master was either wrong in law or that it was unreasonable. The Judgment was given in chambers and neither side had requested transcripts of the Judgment.

Judges:

Mr Justice Astill sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185944

Joseph v Boyd and Hutchinson (No 2): SCCO 16 Jan 2001

CourtService This is one of the last of the ‘old’ Review cases which will come before the courts antedating as it does the CPR. The Defendant Solicitors had represented the Claimant and her sister in their claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of a traffic accident in 1989. The Claimant is almost uniquely qualified, in that she has been a barrister, is a solicitor and is also a fully qualified costs draftsperson. After those proceedings were successful the Defendants prepared a bill for agreement with the insurers, which claimed a lower hourly rate than that subsequently sought in the bills delivered to the Claimant and her sister. Those costs were agreed and paid, but problems arose over accounting to the Claimant (her sister had assigned all her rights to the Claimant) and accordingly the Claimant, in 1996, started Chancery proceedings for an account. Within those proceedings the Chancery Master directed taxation of the Solicitor’s bill, and this took place over a protracted period, between 1996 and 1999, some of the earlier history being dealt with in Review No.1 of 1999. On this Review a number of points were raised. Firstly, it was contended by the Defendants that the Claimant was a difficult client who had to be handled with special care because of her qualifications, a view which the Judge on appeal rejected.
Secondly, the evidence before the Costs Judge was that the client care letter justifying the higher hourly rate had never been communicated to the Claimant’s sister, and whilst the Costs Judge could not be satisfied that it had been sent to the Claimant, he nevertheless felt that the hourly rates claimed were justified. The Judge disagreed, partly on the basis that the inter partes bill in the same matter had been approved at a lower rate, and also because the Claimant, when drafting bills for the Defendants, in her capacity of a costs draftsperson, had done so at lower hourly rates.
The Judge also rejected the Costs Judge’s view that the interlocutory uplift for conferences etc should be 50% rather than 35%.
Finally the Judge felt that the Claimant should recover her costs of the Review on the indemnity basis because of the conduct of the Defendants in not keeping the Claimant fully informed of what was happening in her name (notably not notifying her that a Calderbank offer had been made in respect of the inter partes costs).
Some of the evidence had not been before the Costs Judge, but nevertheless the Judge felt that it was an appropriate case to direct that the Defendants should pay costs on the indemnity basis, and the matter was remitted to a different Costs Judge for final resolution

Judges:

Mr Justice Jacob sitting with Assessors

Citations:

[2001] EW Costs 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185941

Kye Gbangbola and Lisa Lewis v Smith Sherriff Limited: TCC 20 Mar 1998

‘A tribunal does not act fairly and impartially if it does not give a party an opportunity of dealing with arguments which have not been advanced by either party’.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Humphrey Lloyd Qc

Citations:

[1998] 3 All ER 730

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 68

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Costs

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185895

De Bry v Fitzgerald: CA 1990

A request was made for security for costs in a large sum against a foreign resident party: ‘The more usual course might have been to order security, if security was to be ordered at all, in a relatively small sum in the first place, leaving the defendants to come back for further security as the matter progressed.’
Lord Donaldson said that since the purpose of an order for security against a plaintiff ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction, is to have a fund within the jurisdiction which will guarantee that any order for costs in favour of the defendant will be met, ‘it is a complete answer to an application for such an order that a fund already exists, at least if the Court can ensure that the fund will not be dissipated.
Staughton LJ said, in reliance upon Kevorkian v Burney (No 2) [1937] 4 All ER 468, that it is for the plaintiff to show that he has an asset within the jurisdiction which will remain here and then for the defendant to show, if he can, that the asset is worthless or not of sufficient worth to cover the costs.

Judges:

Dillon LJ, Donaldson LJ, Staughton LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 552, [1990] 1 All ER 560

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kevorkian v Burney (No 2) CA 1937
When applying for security for costs against a foreign resident plaintiff, it is first for the defendants to show that the plaintiff is resident abroad within Ord. 23, r. 1; secondly, for the plaintiff to show that he has an asset here which will . .

Cited by:

Reconsidered – Fitzgerald and Others v Williams and Others O’Regan and Others v Same CA 3-Jan-1996
Security for costs should not to be granted against an EC National in the absence of some particular difficulty. The Treaty required citizens of other states which were signatories of the convention. The importance of accurate evidence is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183176

In re Nossen’s Letter Patent: 1969

Citations:

[1969] 1 WLR 638

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Admiral Management Services Ltd v Para-Protect Europe Ltd and Others ChD 4-Mar-2002
The claimants suspected the defendants of wrongfully using their confidential information. Their staff made an initial investigation. They obtained a search and seizure order; and the material seized was examined by the staff. A Tomlin Order was . .
Applied – Sisu Capital Fund Ltd and others v Tucker and others 28-Oct-2005
The Defendants were accountants who had been sued through their partnership in KPMG. They had been granted a order for their costs. They sought payment for the time they had spent prersonally in preparing their defences.
Held: As professionals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183006