Bank Notes

C - Costs against non-parties

19/3/20

POPELY v POPELY [2020] EWHC 667 (Ch)

Reviews principles on which costs can be ordered against non-parties [5].

11/1/19

VARIOUS CLAIMANTS v GIAMBRONE & LAW [2019] EWHC 34 (QB)

Reviews principles for awarding non-party costs under s 51 Senior Courts Act 1981. A non-party costs order was made against an insurer whose funding was held to have enabled the claimant to spend twice as much pursuing claims than they would otherwise have done.

10/10/14

WEATHERFORD GLOBAL PRODUCTS LTD v HYDROPATH HOLDINGS LTD [2014] EWHC 3243 (TCC)

The court reviewed the applicable principles for making a company director liable for non-party costs of proceedings to which the company was a party [4]. On the facts, the director/shareholder controlled the litigation for the company, he stood to benefit from speculative counterclaims and it was just and fair that he should personally pay the costs of the counterclaims.

3/7/14

JOBANPUTRA v MODI [2014] EWCA Civ

It was not appropriate to make a non-party costs order against a third party solicitor who had given misleading information by wrongly certifying a copy document as a true copy but who had taken no part in the litigation.

24/6/14

DEUTSCHE BANK AG v SEBASTIAN HOLDINGS INC [2014] EWHC 2073 (Comm)

A bank obtained money judgment and order for 85% of its costs in a claim against a company. When the company failed to pay, the bank obtained permission to serve a non-party costs application on the company’s sole director out of the jurisdiction. The director’s arguments that the United States was a more convenient forum failed. The director was a privy of the company so findings in the proceedings against the company were admissible and binding on him. A non-party costs order was made because he had controlled the conduct of the company’s defence which had relied on his evidence. His conduct had been reprehensible, involved impropriety and had caused the bank to incur costs. He was the "real party" to the dispute and could be assumed to have funded the litigation.

6/6/13

CENTREHIGH LIMITED v AMEN [2013] EWHC 1448 (Ch)

The court was satisfied that two holding companies had not controlled or funded litigation defended by a subsidiary. The holding companies were not therefore made subject to a third party costs order.

2/5/13

HERON v TNT (UK) LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 469

A solicitor can act for an impecunious client even if he knows the client will not be able to pay his or the other side’s costs. The failure of a solicitor to obtain ATE insurance did not make the solicitor liable to a non-party costs order.

10/4/13

FLATMAN v GERMANY [2013] EWCA Civ 278

Contains a useful summary of the principles to be applied on applications for costs to be paid by a non-party [24]. The mere fact that a solicitor funds disbursements in relation to litigation does not expose the solicitor to liability for a non-party costs order.

28/9/12

TINSELTIME LTD v ROBERTS [2012] EWHC 262 (TCC)

It was not appropriate to make a non-party costs order against a solicitor who acted for an impecunious claimant under a conditional fee agreement with no after the event insurance and who had funded disbursements.