|
Each party to pay own costs where no winner and no loser
Promar International Ltd v Clarke, CA (Civ Div) 4/4/2006
An order that each party was responsible for its own costs in respect of an action for alleged breaches of a restrictive covenant was not manifestly unjust particularly where the order fairly reflected that there was no winner and no loser.
Master’s failure to give reasons for dismissing application for security for costs justified Order being set aside
Komtel Ltd & Anr v Totem Communications Ltd, High Ct, 22/3/2006
A master's failure to give reasons for the dismissal of an application for security for costs taken together with a strong prima facie case for an order for security justified the setting aside of his order.
Claimant to pay 80% of Defendant’s costs where claim failed and failed to beat settlement offer
Lloyd v Svenby & Anr, High Ct, 21/3/2006
In the circumstances, it was appropriate that the claimant should pay 80 per cent of the defendant’s costs given that his claim had failed and he had failed to better the offer made by the defendant in an offer to settle.
Error of discretion where no award of costs where appellant had succeeded in action
Day v Day, CA (Civ Div) 14/3/2006
A judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion by making no award of costs on the basis that neither party had been more successful than the other when it had been clear that the appellant had succeeded in the action.
Order for security for costs
Harris v Wallis, High Ct (Ch D) 10/3/2006
CPR r.25.13(2)(g) did not require a subjective intention to be shown in order to obtain a security for costs order against a claimant who had taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce a costs order against him.
|
