header-logo header-logo

Costs

17 November 2011
Issue: 7490 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy and another [2011] EWHC 2807 (Ch), [2011] All ER (D) 42 (Nov)

 

The general rule was that the unsuccessful party would be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party under CPR 44.3(2)(a). Often it would be appropriate for the loser to pay the winner’s costs, even where there had been issues on which the overall winner had lost. In commercial litigation, the starting point in working out who the winner would be for the purposes of making costs orders would usually be to look at what money had been ordered to be paid.

Parties needed to be afforded a reasonable degree of latitude in formulating claims, including pleading an alternate basis for the same claim. Similarly, where costs had been incurred on issues which were common to a claim which had succeeded and to a claim which had failed, it would often be appropriate simply to make a costs order in favour of the winning party which covered those common issues. 

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll