header-logo header-logo

Civil way: 6 September 2019

05 September 2019
Issue: 7854 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Revisiting no order as to costs; summary assessment forms change; new appeal points; housing provider slips up; ECJ on flight compensation; bundle inheritance

NOT TOO LATE, TOO MUCH

The general rule is that when the court makes an order which is silent on costs, no party is entitled to costs. That’s CPR 44.10 (1) (a). The general rule also applies to family proceedings. That’s FPR 28.2.

Can a retrospective order for costs be made? Yes. The Court of Appeal has just so ruled in the children case of Timokhina v Timokhin [2019] EWCA Civ 1284. Whether the court would actually make the retrospective order, stated vice-president Underhill LJ, is to depend on the circumstances of the case and the application would be considered against the backdrop of CPR 44.10 (1)(a).

The costs sought by the father in this case were eye watering. The mother having conceded that she would withdraw an appeal to a circuit judge and pay standard basis costs, a hearing proceeded to solely determine the basis of assessment. The

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