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.
Ward, Buxton, Arden LJJ
Times 17-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 469, [2003] 4 Costs LR 535, [2003] CP Rep 50, [2003] PNLR 29
England and Wales
CitedRofa 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. . .
CitedRidehalgh 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 . .
CitedMyers 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 AlsoWagstaff v Colls SCCO 2-Apr-2003
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.181180