Master Gordon-Saker erred in his interpretation of CPR 36.14 (3) (d), a High Court judge has decided
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
Our occasional e-Newsletters are a concise, useful and convenient source of information relevant to our clients.
"Toby has always been a pleasure to work with. He is both approachable, friendly and gets good results."Anna Thwaites – for Hodge Jones & Allen LLP