Latest case details

Date

Case details

12-04-2012
Brown-Quinn and Another v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd and Another and Other Matters [2012] 1 Costs LR 1 Whether insurers could decline insured's choice of solicitors.
12-04-2012
Gale and Another v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2012] 1 Costs LR 21 Whether Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings infringed Article 6, and whether costs of a restraint order were costs of the receivership.
12-04-2012
Hunt v Harb and Aziz [2012] 1 Costs LR 78 The costs consequences for a trustee in bankruptcy of assigning a claim.
12-04-2012
Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GMBH and Others v Carefusion 303, Inc [2012] 1 Costs LR 88 Costs consequences of a discontinuance in patent proceedings.
12-04-2012
Manning and Beggs v King's College Hospital NHS Trust [2012] 1 Costs LR 105 Relief from sanctions in a medical negligence case where proper notice of a success fee hadn't been given and an ATE insurance certificate was not served.
12-04-2012
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (By His Litigation Friend and Official Solicitor [2012] 1 Costs LR 150 Costs in an appeal from the Court of Protection
12-04-2012
Lord Chancellor v Ian Henery Solicitors Ltd [2012] 1 Costs LR 190 Special preparation fees for listening to tapes, and whether enhancement could be applied.
12-04-2012
Lord Chancellor v Ian Henery Solicitors Ltd [2012] 1 Costs LR 205 When a trial starts
12-04-2012
Ali v Stagecoach [2012] 2 Costs LO 89 An interim payment was treated as an offer
29-02-2012
Court of Appeal Dockerill v Tullett; Macefield v Bakos; Tubridy v Sarwar [2012] ALLER(D)167(February) In this case the Court of Appeal held that children should not be allowed full recovery of costs in cases settling below the Small Claims threshold. The three linked cases concerned claims by minors in the recovery of the costs of proceedings brought by them under CPR 21.10(2) for the approval of the compromise of their claims for damages for personal injuries.

Patten L.J. when handing down judgment acknowledged that this could stop solicitors taking on lower value children's claims in future.
16-02-2012
Fladgate LLP v Harrison [2012] EWHC67(QB) for Mrs. Justice Lang It was found the giving of instructions by a client to a solicitor constitutes the solicitor's retainer by that client. It is not essential that the retainer is in writing. It may be oral. It may be implied by the conduct of the parties in the particular case. Under the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, certain matters must be proved in writing:
(i) The name and status of the person dealing with the matter, and the person responsible for overall supervision (Rule 2.02(2)(d) );

(ii) Any information about the cost (Rule 2.03(5) );

(iii) Details of the applicable complaints procedure (Rule 2.05(1)(b) ).

It was further stated that the code guidance explains that "it is not envisaged or intended that a breach ..... should invariably render a retainer unenforceable".
16-02-2012
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (The Master of the Rolls) Lord Justice Hooper and Lord Justice McFarlane Sitting with Master Gordon - Saker as Assessor (Case of Adrian Simcoe & Jacuzzi UK Group Plc The Court of Appeal determined the incipitur rule that interest is recoverable from the date of the authority giving rise to costs as opposed to the date of the final costs certificate. This is irrespective of the methods of funding.
09-02-2011
CA (Civ Div) (Rix LJ, Elias LJ, Tomlinson LJ) Rolf v De Guerin CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS.

CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES - COSTS - MEDIATION - PART 36 OFFERS - COSTS CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO BEAT OWN PART 36 OFFER - IMPACT OF REFUSAL TO MEDIATE ON COSTS - PART 36 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998 - RULE 44.3(4)(C) CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998 - RULE 44.4 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998.

A Trial Judge in a small building dispute had fundamentally erred by penalising the Claimant in costs for not obtaining more in damages than she had offered to accept from the Defendant in a CPR Part 36 Offer.
03-02-2011
CA (Civ Div) (Sir Anthony May, President QB Smith LJ, Aikens LJ) (1) Consolidated Contractors Internatioinal Co SAL (2) Consolidated Contractors (Oil & Gas) Co SAL v Munib Masri (Costs) (2011) CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS
APPEALS - CASE MANAGEMENT - COSTS - PAYMENT INTO COURT - PREJUDICE - DETERMINATION OF APPEAL COSTS.

An Appellant who was successful on all but one point was entitled to recover 80% of its costs of the Appeal. It was also entitled to be paid a sum which the Respondent had previously been ordered to pay on account of costs as only one of a number of grounds for that decision had been disturbed on Appeal.
03-02-2011
QBD (Admin) (Mitting J) Solicitors Regulation Authority v Davis (2011) LEGAL PROFESSION - COSTS.
ABILITY TO PAY - COSTS - DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES - SOLICITORS - SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL - APPROPRIATE COSTS ORDERS IN SOLICITORS' DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - CONSIDERATION OF ABILITY TO PAY.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was entilted to take into account the means of solicitors when considering an application by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for costs. However, it was incumbent on a solicitor who admitted disciplinary charges and anticipated the imposition of a sanction to give advance notice to the authority that he would contend that no order as to costs, or a limited order, be made due to his restricted means.
02-02-2011
CA (Civ Div) (Ward LJ, Patten LJ, Black LJ) Katherine Morgan v Spirit Group Ltd (2011) CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS - PERSONAL INJURY.
ASSESSMENT - COSTS ORDERS - DISCRETION - LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS - PROPORTIOINALITY - DISCRETION TO ORDER FIXED CONTRIBUTION TO COSTS ON SUMMARY ASSESSMENT - RULE 44.3 (6)(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998.

On a summary assessment of costs, a Judge did not have the discretion to order the Paying Party to pay a fixed contribution towards the costs of the Receiving Party without a consideration of the individual elements of the Bill of Costs.

21-01-2011
QBD (Swift J) Carter-Ruck (a firm) v Shahrokh Mireskandari (2011) CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS - LEGAL ADVICE & FUNDING - LEGAL PROFESSION EXTENSION OF TIME - FEES - SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION - SUMMARY JUDGMENTS - APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MAKE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT - INADEQUACY OF EVIDENCE.

A Master was entitled to dismiss an application to vary an Order so as to extend time to an individual who had been ordered to make a payment on account for outstanding professional fees where the evidence filed in support of that application was plainly inadequate.
21-01-2011
QBD (Sir Raymond Jack) (1) Brandeaux Advisors (UK) Ltd (2) Brandeaux Managers Ltd (3) Brandeaux Administrators Ltd v Ruth Chadwick (2011) EMPLOYMENT - CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS -
BREACH OF CONTRACT - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - COSTS - DELIVERY UP - EMPLOYEES' DUTIES - DELIVERY UP ON CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WRONGLY TAKEN BY DEFENDANT WHILE EMPLOYED BY CLAIMANTS.

The Court determined a number of consequential issues arising out of its decision that the Claimant employer was entitled to the delivery up of confidential company information that the Defendant, an ex employee, had wrongfully taken during the course of her employment.
20-01-2011
CA (Civ Div) (Sir Andrew Morritt (Chancellor), (Hughes LJ, Aiekens LJ) Thomas Crema v Cenkos Securities PLC (Costs) (2011) COMMERCIAL INTEREST RATE - COSTS - PART 36 OFFERS - DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE COSTS AND INTEREST - LATE PAYMENT OF COMMERCIAL DEBTS (INTEREST) ACT 1998 - SENIOR COURTS ACT 1988 - PT 36 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998.

The Court determined consequential issues of costs and interest following a successful appeal by a sub-broker against a broker whereby it was found the sub-broker was entitled to be paid sub-brokerage by the broker.

14-01-2011
Chancery Division (Roth J) London Tara Hotel Limited v Kensington Close Hotel Ltd (2011) COSTS ORDERS - INDEMNITY BASIS - INTEREST RATES - POSTPONEMENT - GROSSLY INFLATED CLAIMS - APPROPRIATENESS OF INDEMNITY BASIS - PART 40 (i) RULE.40.8 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998.

Inappropriate circumstances the presentation of a grossly inflated claim might constitute conduct that could justify an award of indemnity costs.
21-12-2010
Ch D (David Richard J) (1) Nicholas John Griffin (2) Simon Darby v Kenneth Smith & 5 Ors COSTS - CIVIL PROCEDURE

The fact that one defendant in an action to restrain publication of a document had frustrated the purpose of the action by wrongfully publishing the document did not in the circumstances justify a departure from the usual costs consequences in relation to the other defendants of the cliamant's subsequent discontinuance of the action.
17-12-2010
CA (Civ Div) (Sedley LJ, Rimer LJ, Black LJ) Autoweld Systems Ltd v Kito Enterprises LLC CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS - ENERGY

A judge had properly exercised his discretion when considering the likely financial position of the parties to a claim and counterclaim for breach of contract as to the conclusion of the proceedings and determininng that an order for security of costs was appropriate against the claimant company.
16-12-2010
Ca (Civ Div) (Carnwath LJ, Moses LJ) Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners VAT - CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS

CPR Pt 36 applied to appeals from a VAT and duties tribunal to both the High Court and the Court of Appeal
10-12-2010
FTT (Tax) (Judge Roger Berner) Hawkeye Communications Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners VAT - COSTS

Where an ongoing VAT appeal, commenced before the implementation of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, was deemed to be "current proceedings" under the Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009 Sch.3 para.1(2) for the purposes of determining whether the costs regime under the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 should apply, the effect of categorisation of the case as "complex" pursuant to r.23(4) of the 2009 Rules was of no effect on the limited power of the tribunal to apply the costs regime under the 2009 Rules.
09-12-2010
QBD (Comm) (Tomlinson LJ) (1) Pindell Ltd (2) BBAM Aircraft Holdings 98 (Labuan) Ltd v Airasia Berhad (formerly Airasia Sdn.Bhd) (Costs) CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS

Whilst in principle a claimant should have been able to recover its costs from the Defendant for defending a point on which it was successful, the amount recoverable was reduced after looking at the matter in the round and particularly the overall outcome of the whole litigation in which the claimant had generally been unsuccessful and its refusal to consider settlement on terms which were more favourable to it than those ultimately achieved.
08-12-2010
CA (Civ Div) (Sir Andrew Morritt (Chancellor), Moore-Bick LJ, Jackson LJ) David Robert Perrins v (1) Richard Philip Holland (2) Sharon Ruth Moore (as executors of the estate of Robert Perrins, Deceased) (3) Anne Dooney CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS - SUCCESSION

There was no error in a judge's decision to order that a party who had unsuccessfully challenged the validity of a will, and who had refused an offer to settle, should pay his opponents costs.
08-12-2010
EAT (Underhill J (President) Annapoornamma Yerrakalva v (1) Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2) Governors of Dearne Carrfield Primary School (2010) EMPLOYMENT - COSTS

Where a party claimed costs in employment tribunal proceedings as a result of the other party's unreasonable conduct, there did not have to be a precise causal relationship between the unreasonable conduct and the costs claimed, but any award of costs had to reflect the effect of the conduct in question.
01-12-2010
QBD (Admin) (Kenneth Parker J) Louis Glatt v Heath Sinclair CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - COSTS

The costs of a receiver appointed under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 incurred in resisting an unsuccessful application for permission to pursue proceedings against him in relation to his conduct as a receiver were costs of the receivership and payable out of the receivership assets.
29-11-2010
Ch D (Companies Court) (Floyd J) Monte Developments Ltd (in administration) v (1) Court Management Consultants Ltd (2) Paul Grant Jackson (3) Patricia Mary Jackson CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS

The court had not had jurisdiction to make a Charging Order absolute where the sums claimed were un-assessed costs and sums not the subject of a judgment or order.
24-11-2010
CA (Civ Div) (Patten LJ, Black LJ) North Shore Ventures Ltd v (1) Anstead Holdings Inc (2) Ruslan Fomichev (3) Vasily Peganov CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS

It was inappropriate to lift a stay on the execution of a judgment order pending an appeal of the judgment as to do so would stifle any appeal. However, it was appropirate to modify the stay and to grant the respondent security for costs in the sum of £100,000.
17-11-2010
Ch D (Lewison J) Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP COSTS - LEGAL PROFESSION

On an assessment of a solicitor's bill on the application of a third party liable to pay it, the court had to assess the bill as if the client himself had required the assessment. The third party was entitled to raise such objections as the client himself could have raised; and only such objections, so that it could not, for example, dispute hourly rates that had been agreed between the parties.
12-11-2010
CA/Civ Div) (Sedley LJ, Moses LJ, Leveson LJ) Zapello v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS - POLICE

A claim for false imprisonment might have been compromised if those conducting the claim on behalf of the Defendant chief constable had been given details of a complaint and investigations into the same events. Accordingly, even though the claim was dismissed, the correct order for costs to reflect the fact that each party was at fault for incurring the costs of the trial was no order for costs
04-11-2010
DR (Birmingham) (David Cooke HHJ) Trevor John Brooks (Claimant) v AH Brooks & Co (A Firm) & (1) Elizabeth Anne Winter Morris (2) Paul Winter Morris (3) Roger Brooks (4) Judith Parkin (Executrix of the Will of Stephen Short, Deceased) (Third Parties) CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS - PARTNERSHIPS

If an acknowledgement of service was signed by a person who was a partner at the time a cause of action accrued, or by a person who was authorised to sign by any such partner, it was effective on behalf of those who were partners at that time, notwithstanding any lack of actual authority as between the partners themselves.
02-11-2010
QBD (Rix LJ) Chadwick v Hollingsworth (No. 2) CIVIL PROCEDURE - CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE - COSTS - NEGLIGENCE - AMENDMENTS PARTICULARS OF CLAIM - COSTS

A judge had erred in principle when ordering a claimant to pay the costs of clinical negligence proceedings up to the date of his amended particulars of claim on the basis that the original claim had been worthless and could be summarily dismissed. The proper solution would have been to allow the outcome of the subsequent trial to deal with the just allocation of costs.
26-10-2010
QBD (TCC) (Ramsey J) Geoffrey Kay v Mathew Lawrence (2010) REAL PROPERTY - CIVIL PROCEDURE - CONSTRUCTION LAW

An adjoining owner's right to request security under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 s.12(1) applied to all cases where a building owner exercised rights under the Act, including where works were carried out under s.6(1) and s.6(2). Security was not limited to cases where the building owner proposed to carry out work to the adjoining owner's property.
25-10-2010
QBD (Admin) (McKenna J) R (on the application of J) v Hackney London Borough Council CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS - LOCAL GOVERNMENT
It was appropriate pursuant to CPR v 44.3 to award Claimants in compromised judicial review proceedings against a local authority, the costs of their claim where it had been obvious from the issue of proceedings that their claim was likely to be successful at trial.
25-10-2010
QBD (Judge Thornton QC) (1) Graham Charles Ashley-Carter (2) Ashley-Carter Co (A Firm) v (1) Hofmann & Mountford Ltd (2) James Brennan (3) Christopher Nicolas Randall CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS

Where the conduct of two company directors in defending claims against the company and them personally had been reprehensible and wholly unreasonable, that was a relevant consideration for the purposes of determining costs under CPR r 44.3. Such conduct justifed the making of an order that they be jointly and severally liable for the successful Claimant's costs of the entire action on the indemnity basis.
15-02-2010
Ca (Civ Div) (Sir Andrew Morritt (Chancellor), Leveson LJ, Jackson LJ) James Pankhurst v (1) Lee White (2) Motor Insurers Bureau CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS - LEGAL ADVICE AND FUNDING

A judge had been right when making a costs order following a successful claim for damages for personal injury to refuse to award interest under CPR Pt 36(1) r.36.14(3)(A) on damages referable to future losses and interest on indemnity costs under r.36.14(3)(c)
15-02-2010
SC (Lord Hope (Deputy President), Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Dyson) R (on the application of Edwards & Anor) v Environment Agency & Ors CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS - ENVIRONMENT - EUROPEAN UNION

Supreme Court costs officers had no jurisdiction to implement the requirement under EU law that review proceedings concerning certain environmental matters should not be prohibitively expensive. The issue of whether a review procedure was prohibitively expensive was a matter that should be addressed by the court itself, preferably at the outset of the proceedings.
09-02-2010
Ch D (Richard Snowden QC) In the matter of Capitol Films Ltd (in Administration) sub nom (1) David Ruben (2) Henry Lan (Joint Administrators of Capitol Films Ltd v Cobalt Pictures Ltd & 24 Ors INSOLVENCY - CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS

The conduct of the administrators of a film company in administration had been unreasonable to such an extent that it was appropriate to make an order for them to pay the costs of their application under the Insolvency Act 1986 Sch. B1 para. 71 personally and on the indemnity basis.