A claimant should not be subject to a “swingeing” costs order for adding to their plea if they ultimately win damages using the same evidence as their initial claim.
Norris J decides how to allocate costs where some legal expenditure is common to four related disputes, and where both sides win elements of their case.
Coulson J decides that a claimant’s proposed £9.2 million costs budget for a straightforward £18 million damages claim was excessive.
The rights of interested parties to costs was discussed in a recent High Court ruling arising out of a government procurement dispute.
The Court of Appeal expresses concern over the withdrawal of legal aid for the majority of family proceedings
The High Court awarded costs against all three claimants on an indemnity basis, notwithstanding the fact that each party notionally succeeded in their claim for libel.
In a recent libel case, the High Court clarified the judiciary’s approach to contingencies within budgets. In the dispute, contingencies accounted for around 10 per cent of both sides’ future estimated costs.
Where the Court orders a party to pay costs subject to a detailed assessment it will order that party to pay a reasonable sum on account of costs unless there is a good reason not to do so. Such power is not dependent upon the filing of a statement of costs, nor the type of funding arrangement in place
High Court Judge overturns overly generous application of Mitchell guidance
A Costs Judge concludes that the Mitchell guidance does not apply to default judgments contrary to earlier High Court ruling.
Our occasional e-Newsletters are a concise, useful and convenient source of information relevant to our clients.
"Tom Winyard is very experienced and knowledgeable in this minefield of costing. He is a very effective communicator and handheld me every step of the way in my dealings with the most aggressive unethical opposing counsel. When the world caved in on me, it was Tom who step-by-step and patiently built the picture to protect his client. After hiring 4 law firms, waste of money and time and did not even achieve anything close to what Tom can offer. It would certainly be detrimental too to any suffering party not to hire Tom Winyard because I have certainly called almost 40 costs firms in London and had no joy with them. Thank you Tom, we will be forever indebted. We are grateful and we thank God for enabling us to find Tom to salvage the most painful event."Linda Chin - Singapore