header-logo header-logo

20 October 2016 / Kerry Underwood
Issue: 7721 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

Cost benefit analysis

Costs orders: who pays & when, asks Kerry Underwood

    • Wasted costs orders in civil litigation—a rapidly developing area of law.

    Wasted costs orders can only be made against a representative, whereas non-party costs orders can be made against anyone, including a representative.

    In both cases the power derives from s 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Sub-section (3) provides that “the court shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid” and this covers the county court, High Court and the civil division of the Court of Appeal (s 51(1)).

    This piece deals with wasted costs orders in civil litigation (but there are similar sanctions in the criminal courts and in tribunals) and non-party costs orders.

    Wasted costs

    Wasted costs includes disallowing costs and ordering payment of costs (s 51(6)) and can be at the suit of the representative’s own client or the other side

    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

    Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

    Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

    Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

    Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

    Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

    Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

    NEWS
    The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
    Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
    The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
    A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

    Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

    back-to-top-scroll