C - Costs
1/6/20
DE SENA v NOTARO [2020] EWHC 1366 (Ch)
Considers principles regarding the award of costs on the indemnity basis [9], payment on account of costs [50], time for payment [60], and interest on costs [63].
21/5/20
C LTD v D [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm)
Considers principles to be applied on an application for costs after a matter has been resolved by consent [48].
12/5/20
KOZA v KOZA ALTIN ISLETMELERI AS [2020] EWHC 1092 (Ch)
Considers what order should be made as to costs when an applicant obtains an interlocutory injunction on the basis of balance of convenience [10]. On the facts the balance of convenience was significantly against the respondent and the court was likely to be better placed than another judge to decide the question of costs. The applicant was therefore entitled to the costs of the application which were to be borne by the second respondent alone as he was the “real master of the litigation” [27]. Payment on account of just over 50% was appropriate [45].
20/12/19
CRUMPLER v CANDEY LTD [2019] EWHC 3558 (Ch)
Considers new value to be regarded as given for a floating charge which would otherwise be invalid under s 245 Insolvency Act 1986. Comments on solicitors guideline hourly rates in costs assessment [155].
24/9/19
OHPEN OPERATIONS UK LTD v INVESCO FUND MANAGERS LTD [2019] EWHC 2504 (TCC)
Comments on guideline hourly rates in costs assessment [14].
15/1/19
AIRWAYS PENSION SCHEME TRUSTEE v FIELDER [2019] EWHC 29 (Ch)
Considers principles applicable in a Beddoe application by trustees to ensure they would be entitled to an indemnity from trust funds for their costs of an appeal.
2/10/18
CULLIFORD v THORPE [2018] EWHC 2532 (Ch)
The court has power to order payment on account of costs after a costs order has been made [14].
4/8/17
RNB v LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM [2017] EWHC B15 (Costs)
Although hourly rates are not approved or disapproved at the costs budgeting stage, a reduction in hourly rates on detailed assessment provides a good reason to depart from budgeted costs.
17/12/15
GHISING v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [2015] EWHC 3706 (QB)
Appeal allowed against a Master’s refusal to allow the claimant to recover any success fee for either solicitor or counsel for work done prior to the date of a conditional fee agreement.
10/8/15
SURREY v BARNET & CHASE FARM HOSPITALS NHS TRUST [2015] EWHC B16 (Costs)
On the facts it had not been reasonable for the claimant to change his funding from legal aid to a conditional fee agreement, so additional liabilities were not recoverable from the defendant.
30/7/15
THE LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS v THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY [2015] EWHC 2271 (Ch)
Considers when a successful claimant may be deprived of part of its costs.
22/5/15
EMW LAW LLP v HALBORG [2015] EWHC 2005 (Ch)
An LLP acting for itself is not to be regarded as a litigant in person for the purpose of recovery of costs.
10/2/15
JACKSON v THOMPSONS SOLICITORS [2015] EWHC 549 (QB)
The defendants failed to give notice in accordance with CPR 44.15(2) using the prescribed form (N251) that they and counsel were acting under CFAs. The court granted relief from sanction under CPR 3.9 applying the test in Denton v White.
4/2/15
SIEGEL v PUMMELL [2015] EWHC 195 (QB)
Considers principles on which costs may be awarded on an indemnity basis.
8/7/14
AKHTAR v BOLAND [2014] EWCA Civ 943
The no costs rule for small claims in CPR 27.14(2) applies to appeals in small claims to the Court of Appeal.
4/7/14
BODO COMMUNITY v SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO OF NIGERIA LTD [2014] EWHC 2170 (TCC)
The court explained the dangers of making cost awards on an issue basis and refused to do so.
10/4/14
KERSHAW v ROBERTS [2014] EWHC 1037 (Ch)
The provisions of CPR r 29 dealing with CMCs do not apply to a CPR Part 8 claim unless the claim is allocated to the multi-track. Costs budgets were not therefore required. The court noted that rule changes effective from 22 April 2014 will clarify that the costs management provisions doe not apply to Part 8 claims.
28/3/14
HARRISON v MADEJSKI [2014] EWCA Civ 361
A judge had been entitled to find that the sale of a car at auction had excluded its personalised registration mark, and that the buyer had been unjustly enriched by acquiring the mark. The enrichment was rightly measured as the mark's market value, not the lower value the buyer assigned to it at the auction. Subjective value could be defeated by a claimant proving that the defendant had received an incontrovertible benefit, or that the defendant had requested or freely accepted the benefit (Benedetti v Sawiris, 2013). The judge had been entitled to make a Bullock order for payment by the purchaser of the claimant’s unsuccessful costs of a claim against the auctioneers as second defendants.
26/3/14
NEWLAND SHIPPING & FORWARDING LTD v TOBA TRADING FZC [2014] EWHC 864 (Comm)
The court considered the appropriate costs order where both claim and counterclaim succeeded. A CPR Part 36 offer made before two claims had been de-coupled, ceased to be effective once the claims had been separated into two actions.
6/2/14
CLYDESDALE BANK PLC v KINLEIGH FOLKARD & HAYWARD [2014] EWHC (Ch)
Issue of a claim form (not service) engages the court’s jurisdiction to make orders for costs.
21/1/14
YUZHNY ZAVOD METALL PROFIL LLC v EEMS BEHEERDER BV [2014] EWCA Civ 333
An appeal notice would be struck out unless the appellant complied with an order of the lower court for payment on account of the respondent’s costs.
5/7/13
WOOD v GORBUNOVA [2013] EWHC 1935 (Ch)
Considers the status of court appointed receivers as officers of the court [25], when they may be personally liable for costs [26] and their right to an indemnity [37]. On an application by court appointed receivers for delivery up of documents by a deceased’s former solicitors, the solicitors had acted properly and were entitled to be paid their costs by the receivers. The receivers were refused an indemnity for one third of those costs and 15% of their own costs to reflect inappropriate conduct of the application.
24/6/13
GRUPO HOTELERO URVASCO SA v CAREY VALUE ADDED SL [2013] EWHC 1732 (Comm)
Issue based costs orders were refused as the issues had been interlinked. Instead the successful party’s costs were reduced by 25%.
19/6/13
WALSH v SHANAHAN [2013] EWCA Civ 675
A judge had been right to regard the defendant as substantially successful and to order the claimant to pay 90% of the costs down to the date for acceptance of the defendant’s CPR Part 36 offer which the claimant had rejected, and all of the defendant’s costs after that date.
14/6/13
ELVANITE FULL CIRCLE LTD v AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL (UK) LTD [2013] 1643 (TCC)
Considers the principles for an award of indemnity costs and for payment of costs in excess of an approved costs budget. On the facts indemnity costs were not appropriate and costs were limited to the approved budget. To increase a costs budget a formal application should be made before trial and good reason had to be shown.
5/6/13
SIMMONS & SIMMONS LLP v HICKOX [2013] EWHC 2141 (QB)
Considers when indemnity costs should be ordered against an applicant for summary judgment and the appropriate amount to be paid on account of costs (40%).
24/5/13
GAVIN v ONE HOUSING GROUP LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 580
No term implied into a commercial lease for the landlord to repair retained parts of building. Exaggerating claim and unreasonably refusing offers to settle was sufficient to justify an award of indemnity costs.
3/5/13
SLICK SEATING SYSTEMS v ADAMS [2013] EWHC B8 (Merc)
Costs of an action were summarily assessed at the sum claimed which was within the costs budget and where assessment on the indemnity basis was appropriate in view of the nature of the claim and the defendant’s conduct.
3/5/13
JONES v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE [2013] EWHC 1023 (QB)
The court had power under CPR r 44.3(6) (now 44.2(6)) to order payment of pre-judgment interest on costs. The rate is in the court’s discretion and in this case the rate charged under agreements to fund the claimant’s disbursements was allowed.
6/4/13
MURRAY v NEIL DOWLMAN ARCHITECTURE LTD [2013] EWHC 872 (TCC)
Considers when the court may be prepared to allow an approved costs budget to be revised.
15/2/13
SHAH v BREED [2013] EWHC 232 (QB)
Contains a useful brief summary of the test to be applied on appeals against costs orders [27].
21/3/13
NELSON’S YARD MANAGEMENT CO v EZIEFULA [2013] EWCA Civ 235
A defendant’s failure to respond to pre-action correspondence was a relevant consideration which made it appropriate to disapply the normal rule that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs on discontinuance. The defendant was required to pay the claimant’s costs up until the defence was served.
18/3/13
SYCAMORE BIDCO LTD v BRESLIN [2013] EWHC 583 (Ch)
A claimant which succeeded overall but failed in a substantial misrepresentation claim was disallowed the costs of that issue which represented 40% of the costs of the action.
14/3/13
WEBB RESOLUTIONS LTD v JV LTD [2013] EWHC 509 (TCC)
A claimant which had prepared a draft of the court’s order which did not reflect the order made, was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs incurred in the 3 months which it took for an order in the right form to be agreed.
12/2/13
EDWIN COE LLP v POPAT (Ch D)
The fact that a third party had paid a claimant’s legal fees for her, did not prevent the claimant claiming those costs from the defendants. The claimant had been liable for the legal fees and it was not relevant that another person actually paid them.
22/1/13
CUMMINGS v THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2012] EWHC 48 (QB)
Costs of preparing defendant a witness statement containing irrelevant evidence disallowed.
11/12/12
WEBB RESOLUTIONS LTD v WALLER NEEDHAM & GREEN (A Firm) [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch)
After making a Part 36 Offer, a claimant’s refusal to provide documentation until liability was admitted had been unreasonable and inconsistent with the aim of the pre-action protocol in professional negligence claims. Although the offer had later been accepted, the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs from the date of the refusal.
13/12/12
BANK OF SCOTLAND v QUTB [2012] EWCA Civ 1661
A claimant who falsely purported to act as a litigation friend for his deceased mother’s estate was ordered to pay the bank’s costs on the indemnity basis both in his personal capacity and as administrator of his deceased mother's estate, on the basis that he had acted in breach of a warranty of authority in conducting the litigation.
24/10/12
ADS AEROSPACE LTD v EMS GLOBAL TRACKING LTD [2012] EWHC 2904 (TCC)
A successful defendant's refusal to mediate a month before trial had not been unreasonable, taking into account that the claimant had not engaged in without-prejudice discussion beforehand, an offer to settle made by the claimant showed it was only interested in receiving substantial compensation, mediation so late in the proceedings would have diverted the lawyers from trial preparation, and the defendant had been entitled to take the view that it had a very strong case.
7/9/12
BRIT INNS LTD (In Liquidation) v BDW TRADING LTD [2012] EWHC 2489 QBD (TCC)
Guidance as to when it is appropriate to deprive a successful claimant of costs because the claim had been exaggerated.
26/4/12
LILLEYMAN v LILLEYMAN (No 2) [2012] EWHC 1056 (Ch); [2012] 1 WLR 2801
Where proceedings had been inappropriately pursued in a “no holds barred” basis by the defendant, the claimant was ordered to pay only 80% of the defendant’s costs after the time for acceptance of a Part 36 offer expired, the 20% disallowance being to reflect the defendant’s conduct.
30/3/12
EUROPTION STRATEGIC FUND LIMITED v SKANDINAVISKA ENSKILDA BANKEN [2012] EWHC 749 (Comm)
Summarises principles on which indemnity costs may be awarded [11].