header-logo header-logo

01 March 2012
Issue: 7503 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Dockerill and another (minors by their litigation friend) v Tullett; Macefield (a minor by his litigation friend) v Bakos; Tubridy (by her litigation friend) v Sarwar [2012] EWCA Civ 184, [2012] All ER (D) 167 (Feb)

In circumstances where an order was for a detailed assessment of costs on the standard basis, the court’s obligation under CPR 44.5(1)(a) was to decide whether the costs claimed were proportionately and reasonably incurred or were proportionate and reasonable in amount. That was a fundamentally different exercise from that under CPR Pt 27 where the court was not permitted to order the payment of any costs except those specified under CPR 27.14. The provisions of CPR 45.7(2) excluded certain types of case, including claims for sums below £1,000, from the predictive costs regime but did not otherwise dictate how those costs were to be dealt with. However, the combined effect of CPR 8.9(c) and CPR 21.10(2)(b)(i) was to make those types of cases multi-track claims to which CPR Pt 27 had no application.

The costs judge was required to look realistically at

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll