header-logo header-logo

Champagne without costs

24 November 2017 / Clive Freedman KC
Issue: 7771 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs follow the event, except for respondents in the Court of Appeal who successfully resist permission to appeal, as Clive Freedman QC explains

The changes in the rules relating to permission to appeal in the Court of Appeal have attracted considerable attention. The removal of the applicant’s right to renew a permission application orally is a major change. Refusal of permission to appeal is the end of the road; the road is now shorter still when permission on a written application is refused.

In the changes which came into effect on 3 October 2016, there is a subtle change as regards whether a respondent should prepare submissions in response to a permission application. In short, it is to encourage, rather than direct, a respondent to make a written submission. However, the normal rule for a respondent at the permission stage remains that it must bear its own costs of the exercise even if permission is not given.

Prior to the change in the rules, CPR

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll