header-logo header-logo

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll