header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 February 2019 / David O'Brien , Jenna Coad
Issue: 7828 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

At the court’s discretion: non-party costs orders

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Jenna Coad & David O’Brien reflect on lessons from Giambrone & the award of non-party costs orders in a discretionary jurisdiction
  • Giambrone emphasises the broad, fact-specific discretion conferred on the court in awarding non-party costs orders.

It is a well-documented fact that the court will only grant a non-party costs order (NPCO) in ‘exceptional’ circumstances. But what does exceptional really mean in the context of a discretionary jurisdiction, where the courts notoriously resist placing excessive reliance on case authorities as precedent?

The High Court’s recent decision in Various Claimants v Giambrone & Law (A Firm) & Ors, AIG (Europe) Limited [2019] EWHC 34 (QB) provides useful guidance for parties seeking NPCOs against indemnity insurers. It also reiterates a familiar message that there is no rulebook or checklist in the exercise of the court’s discretion in awarding a NPCO.

The court’s discretion

The jurisdiction to award a NPCO arises under s 51, Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), which states that the costs of and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll