header-logo header-logo

01 March 2013
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Shah and another v Breed and another [2013] EWHC 232 (QB), [2013] All ER (D) 191 (Feb)

It was settled law that an appeal from a costs judge was not a re-hearing. The proper approach was that the appeal should be allowed if the court was satisfied that the decision had been wrong. The issue was whether the judge had reached a decision which was within the ambit of reasonable decisions open to him on the facts of the case. Further, given that the assessment was a case management decision, the court should not interfere with decisions within it taken by a costs judge who had applied the correct principles and who had taken into account matters that should have been taken into account and left out of account matters which had been irrelevant, unless it was satisfied that the decisions had been so plainly wrong that they had to be regarded as outside the generous ambit of discretion entrusted to the judge.

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll