header-logo header-logo

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

Champagne without costs

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 Pt

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll