header-logo header-logo

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

Costs

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll