|
Issue-based Costs Order
National Westminster Bank Plc v Kotonou, Ca (Civ Div) 26/02/2007
Where a guarantor had succeeded in setting aside a guarantee given to a bank but had fought the case on numerous distinct bases on which he had lost, one of which was an improper allegation of fraud, a judge had been entitled to depart from the normal rule that the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party's costs and make an issue-based split costs order.
No jurisdiction to make percentage reduction of assessed costs
Lahey v Pirelli Tyres Ltd, CA (Civ Div) 14/02/2007; Times, February 19, 2007
A costs judge did not have jurisdiction to make a percentage reduction of the assessed costs before embarking on a detailed assessment.
Bill of Costs considered globally disproportionate
Finster v Arriva London & Anr, SCCO, 31/01/2007
In the circumstances, a costs bill of £54,000 in relation to a road traffic claim was globally disproportionate, particularly where the claim was settled for only £10,000 and the case was not novel or complex demanding particular special skills. The equivalent to the reasonable costs of a one-day liability trial would be allowed in respect of the trial costs because liability issues could have been disposed of in a day.
Claimant’s liability for costs incurred by Defendant before permission to apply for JR
Davey v Aylesbury Vale District Council, High Ct, 01/02/2007
In the context of a costs order in judicial review proceedings, which stated that the unsuccessful claimant was to pay "75 per cent of the costs of this claim not to include costs of the permission hearing...", it had been open to the judge in a detailed assessment hearing to order that the claimant was liable for 75 per cent of the costs reasonably incurred by the defendant prior to the grant of permission to apply for judicial review, but not for the costs of the permission hearing itself.
Common Costs under CFA
Russell Young & Co v Brown & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 31/01/2007
In the circumstances, where claims had settled before proceedings had begun and there had been no opportunity for a costs-sharing order to be made, the claimants could recover generic or common costs under the terms of a conditional fee agreement, which were wide enough to encompass such costs. There was no need for any additional or collateral agreement relating to generic costs.
|
