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
Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

Financial services and regulatory offering boosted by partner hires

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
NLJ this week: Civil practice with claws & caution
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
NLJ this week: Stealing virtual gold?
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll