header-logo header-logo

04 October 2024 / Claudine Morgan , Mary Barrett
Issue: 8088 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Case discontinued: but who pays the bill?

191464
Claudine Morgan & Mary Barrett on why defendants should not presume their costs will be met when claims are discontinued
  • Examines six key principles provided by the Court of Appeal in Brookes v HSBC plc on the disapplication of CPR 38.6, in relation to what will and will not be considered.

There are many different reasons for discontinuance of a claim. Generally speaking, regardless of the reason, the defendant is entitled to recover its costs up to the date of discontinuation. This fundamental entitlement is provided for in Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 38.6(1):

‘Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.’

This is consistent with CPR 44.2(2), with the general rule being that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. Common sense certainly dictates that the defendant

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll