|
Gamboa-Garzon v Langer, CA (Civ Div) 25/7/2006
In the circumstances, where a respondent had misrepresented to the court that all the parties to proceedings had agreed to an adjournment, the judge's exercise of discretion when making no order as to costs was seriously flawed and there had been no reason to deprive an appellant of her costs.
Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras, CA (Civ Div) 19/7/2006
The judge had been right to join an individual to the proceedings and make him jointly and severally liable for the costs of the successful defendants where he had controlled the proceedings brought by the claimant company, funded those proceedings and would have benefited from them if they had been successful.
Garrett v Halton BC, CA (Civ Div) (Senior Costs Judge Hurst) 18/7/2006; Times, July 19, 2006
When determining whether a solicitor had failed to satisfy a condition referred to in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 s.58(3) it was not necessary to consider whether the client had suffered actual prejudice.
Miller v Hales & Ors, High Ct, 17/7/2006
The court determined liability for costs following a claim in which each party had won on one of the two key issues, but where the claimant was successful overall on a point raised only shortly before the trial began.
Reg & Ors v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc, High Ct (Ch D) 14/7/2006
Where the claimants had failed to establish any justification for bringing a claim for an account of the defendant's dealing with the estate of the deceased, it was appropriate to order costs on an indemnity basis.
Total Spares & Supplies Ltd & Anr v Antares SRL & Ors, High Ct (Ch D) 27/6/2006
It was just to make a third party costs order against a non-party whose actions were responsible for effectively depriving a claimant of any realistic opportunity of recovering its costs.
|
