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

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
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll