Cost benefit analysis – New Law Journal
‘Costs orders: who pays & when, asks Kerry Underwood.’
New Law Journal, 20th October 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
Category: wasted costs orders
Cost benefit analysis – New Law Journal
‘Wasted costs orders can only be made against a representative, whereas non-party costs orders can be made against anyone, including a representative.’
New Law Journal, 20th October 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘I Started Something I Couldn’t Finish’ – Wasted Costs Application Against Legal Representatives – Zenith PI Blog
‘Anecdotal evidence suggests that Defendants in failed personal injury claims are increasingly making use of the Court’s wasted costs powers in an attempt to recover costs from Claimants’ legal representatives. Often this is in cases where the Defence is either explicitly or implicitly one of fraud. In such cases the terms of the ATE insurance (if indeed any is held by the Claimant) are often such that the policy does not pay out. Thus, Defendants are sometimes left in the position of holding a costs order against a ‘man of straw’. To circumvent this problem it seems some Defendants are making costs applications against legal representatives directly, using the wasted costs jurisdiction. The recent case of Kagalovsky v Balmore Invest Ltd [2015] EWHC 1337 (QB)[1] provides a salutary reminder of the difficulties a party faces when seeking to persuade a Court to make a wasted costs order.’
Zenith PI Blog, 20th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
No entitlement to human rights damages after ‘caste discrimination’ case collapse – UK Human Rights Blog
‘The High Court has ruled that when long-running employment tribunal hearing collapsed as the result of the judge’s recusal due to apparent bias the claimants in the action could not obtain damages for wasted costs under section 6 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 (specifically Article 6, the right to a fair trial) or the EU Charter.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
New duty will require judges to report lawyers subject to wasted costs orders to regulators – Litigation Futures
‘Judges making wasted costs orders (WCOs) are to be placed under a duty to report the lawyers involved to their regulator in a bid to make them “consider more carefully the decisions they make in handling a case”, the government has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 6th February 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
CA: judge should have recused himself from hearing wasted costs application – Litigation Futures
“The Court of Appeal has taken the highly unusual step of ruling that a judge should have recused himself from hearing a wasted costs order against a party’s solicitors given the comments he made about them in his substantive judgment.”
Litigation Futures, 27th August 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Wasted costs against local authority in private law proceedings by James Hargan – Sovereign Chambers
“In HB, PB, and OB –v- London Borough of Croydon [2013] EWHC 1956 (Fam) Cobb J had to consider whether or not to make an order that a Local Authority which had been directed to file a section 37 report, and whose failure to do so properly had led to wasted costs, should pay those wasted costs of aborted days of hearing. The power to make such a costs order was in the discretion of the court (Senior Courts Act 1981 s51(1)) and, by reference to FPR 2010 28.1, the court could make such order as it thought just. The Local Authority was sufficiently closed connected with the litigation, and its failings were so serious, as to justify making what the court was urged to regard as an exceptional order.”
Sovereign Chambers, 19th July 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
Court upholds wasted costs order – Law Society’s Gazette
“The Court of Appeal has upheld a wasted costs order against a Buckinghamshire firm, ruling that it was ‘complicit’ in its client’s ‘manipulation’ of the court process by failing to give reasons for opposing a hearsay notice in a criminal trial.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 8th March 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
