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

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