header-logo header-logo

Costs

06 February 2015
Issue: 7639 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

McGraddie v McGraddie and another [2015] UKSC 1, [2015] All ER (D) 208 (Jan)

Following his successful appeal (see [2013] All ER (D) 384 (Jul)), the claimant sought an order that the Scottish Legal Aid Board (the Board) pay his expenses, including his after the event insurance (ATE) premium. The Supreme Court held that, absent agreement or a specific statutory sanction to the contrary, a successful party to litigation could not recover an ATE premium, however reasonably incurred, as part of his costs or expenses of legal proceedings. Accordingly, the claimant would be awarded his expenses of the appeals to the Extra Division of the Inner House and to the court against the Board, but not the ATE premium.

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll