header-logo header-logo

Case discontinued: but who pays the bill?

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll