header-logo header-logo

Costs

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

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 paying

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

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