header-logo header-logo

19 January 2012
Issue: 7497 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Astrazeneca UK Ltd v International Business Machines Corporation [2011] EWHC 3373 (TCC), [2012] All ER (D) 22 (Jan)

 

It was well established that while, in principle, there might be two alternative bases for obtaining costs, namely under the terms of an express contractual indemnity or by the exercise of the court’s discretion pursuant to s 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the CPR, the fact that the court made an order pursuant to s 51 did not detract from any contractual right to claim indemnity costs. It was clear that in exercising its discretion under CPR 44.3, the court should ordinarily exercise that discretion so as to reflect the contractual right.

Equally, if the court was giving effect to a contractual right to costs, then the provisions of CPR 48.3 and para 50.1 of the Costs Practice Direction to CPR Pt 48 would provide, first, that the costs recoverable were those which had been reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount, and, second, that the costs payable should be disallowed if the court was satisfied by 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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll