header-logo header-logo

04 April 2025 / Julian Caddick
Issue: 8111 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs , Litigants in person
printer mail-detail

Costs: getting personal

214564
The complexities of costs proceedings can be a minefield for litigants in person. But the courts expect compliance with the rules, writes Julian Caddick
  • Considers the case of Mlundira v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 189 (KB), in which the LiP claimant had succeeded in judicial review proceedings regarding unlawful immigration detention.

For 50 years, the Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (as amended) has provided a mechanism for litigants in person (LiPs) to recover costs from other parties to proceedings. However, many LiPs fail to appreciate the complexities and intricacies of rules of court and common law, particularly when it comes to costs proceedings.

Under r 46.5 of the CPR, a LiP’s recoverable fees are limited to two-thirds of what they would have recovered if legally represented. This does not apply to disbursements, only recoverable fees. They are further restricted to an hourly rate of £19 per hour unless they can demonstrate evidence of financial loss in connection with time they have reasonably

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll