An appeal was made against an order refusing an award of costs against solicitors for the opposing party.
Held: The judge’s order saying that an aplication should have been forewarned earlier was made within his discretion, and was appropriate. The value at stake meant that this application was disproportionate, and satellite litigation of this sort was to be discouraged. The fact that no indication was given at the time that a wasted costs order would be sought is rarely likely to be a sufficient reason for refusing to accede to a subsequent application for such an order.
Judges:
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 156
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Filmlab Systems International Ltd and Another v Pennington and Others ChD 9-Jul-1993
In civil litigation an application for a wasted costs order should only save in exceptional circumstances, be made after the trial. The court mentioned several dangers if applications were made at an interlocutory stage, among them the risk that a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Costs
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.180714