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
Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Renters’ Rights revolution begins—brace for tribunal chaos

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

NLJ this week: Civil procedure gets a spring overhaul
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
NLJ this week: Why GP complaints are going nowhere
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
NLJ this week: Prenups meet a jurisdictional brick wall
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
NLJ this week: Has Rylands v Fletcher come back from the dead?
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll