header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 February 2007 / Prof A Mcgee , P Hughes , Dr M Friston , M Smith
Issue: 7259 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs Law Brief

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

CONDUCT BATTLE LINES >>
northstar systems ltd v fielding >>
CLARIFICATION POST NORTHSTAR >>

CONDUCT AND COSTS

Since 2004 costs practitioners and costs judges have had to wrestle with the issue of what is meant by ‘conduct’. Parties had to draw up battle lines based on the often artificial distinction between the type of conduct which is relevant to CPR 44.5(3) and the type of conduct which—
according to receiving parties—could only be reflected in costs orders.
This state of affairs followed Aaron v Shelton [2004] EWHC 1162 (QB), [2004] 3 All ER 561 in which Mr Justice Jack indicated that if a paying party was going to rely on the conduct or misconduct of the receiving party to seek a reduction in the costs to be paid, the time to raise that factor was at the end of the trial and not before the

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll