Solicitors who unreasonably commence proceedings may be subject to a wasted costs order, but there should be no award of costs against a solicitor solely because he acted without a fee. An award of costs should not be made against a solicitor who had acted for a client in a defamation action which was lost, and where the costs would be irrecoverable from the plaintiff, solely because the solicitor had acted without a fee.
Rose LJ said: ‘Section 51(1) and (3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 do not confer jurisdiction to make an order for costs against legal representatives when acting as legal representatives.’ and ‘In my judgment Mr Mansfield is correct in his submission that there are only three categories of conduct which can give rise to an order for costs against a solicitor:
1. It is within the wasted costs jurisdiction of section 51(6) and (7);
2. It is otherwise a breach of duty to the court, such as even before the Judicature Acts could found an order, eg if he acts even unwittingly without authority or in breach of an undertaking;
3. If he acts outside the role of solicitor, eg in a private capacity or as a true third party funder for someone else.’
Judges:
Rose LJ
Citations:
Gazette 10-Jan-1996, Independent 03-Jan-1996, Times 27-Dec-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 736
Statutes:
Supreme Court Act 1981 51(6) 51(7)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Watts v Aldington, Tolstoy v Aldington CA 15-Dec-1993
There had been a settlement of proceedings for libel brought by Lord Aldington against Mr Nigel Watts and Count Nikolai Tolstoy. Lord Aldington had obtained judgment for andpound;1.5 million in damages against both defendants following a trial. . .
See Also – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .
Cited by:
Cited – Liubov Ford v Richard Labrador PC 22-May-2003
(Gibraltar) The appellant had failed in an action for defamation, she had been ordered to pay costs as a condition of her continuing the action.
Held: The order was made by the Chief Justice sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal in an . .
See Also – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .
See Also – Watts v Aldington, Tolstoy v Aldington CA 15-Dec-1993
There had been a settlement of proceedings for libel brought by Lord Aldington against Mr Nigel Watts and Count Nikolai Tolstoy. Lord Aldington had obtained judgment for andpound;1.5 million in damages against both defendants following a trial. . .
Cited – Myatt and others v National Coal Board (No 2) CA 16-Mar-2007
The parties had been involved in compensation claims. Complaint was made that the solicitors had recovered fees for action which substantially was intended to benefit the solicitor. The conditional fee agreements had been found to be unenforceable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Defamation, Legal Professions
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.89912