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

Katten Muchin Rosenman—Charlotte Hill

Katten Muchin Rosenman—Charlotte Hill

Katten strengthens financial markets and funds group in London

Hugh James—Keith Cundall & Lee Hart

Hugh James—Keith Cundall & Lee Hart

Hugh James expands national Serious Injury team with two new Partners

HFW—Rémi Ducloyer

HFW—Rémi Ducloyer

HFW continues Paris office growth with public law Partner hire

NEWS
The Court of Appeal's decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has lifted months of uncertainty for Chartered Legal Executives while prompting a rethink of regulation and supervision
The assisted dying debate returns to Westminster as Lauren Edwards MP reintroduces legislation that stalled in the House of Lords last session despite clearing the Commons
A little-noticed provision of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 has fundamentally expanded corporate criminal liability
Artificial intelligence is transforming legal practice, but careless reliance on it is creating growing professional risks
The law offers cohabiting couples surprisingly greater protection after one partner dies than when they separate during life
back-to-top-scroll