header-logo header-logo

04 September 2008
Issue: 7335 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Costs law update

The costs team at Kings Chambers explains the principles underlying protective costs orders

The Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 749, [2008] All ER (D) 12 (Jul) has recently refined the principles concerning protective costs orders. Protective costs orders (PCOs) are a type of pre-emptive costs order which (generally speaking) are only available in public law claims. Unlike other pre-emptive costs orders (such as costs capping orders), their aim is not solely to control extravagant expenditure; instead, their aim is to protect litigants who reasonably bring public law proceedings in the public interest from the liability of an adverse costs order in the event that they lose. That said, PCOs can, and often do, impose a cap on the recoverable costs.

Principles matter

The principles guiding these types of orders were established by Mr Justice Dyson (as he then was) in the pre-CPR case of R v Lord Chancellor ex parte Child Poverty Action Group [1998] 2 All ER 755. Following the advent of

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: 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
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
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll