header-logo header-logo

28 March 2008
Issue: 7314 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

COSTS—WASTED COSTS—WAIVER

D v H [2008] EWHC 559 (Fam), [2008] All ER (D) 286 (Mar)

Family Division

Sumner J

19 March 2008

Where a litigant has obtained costs orders against the other party and also a wasted costs order against the other party’s solicitors in respect of the same costs, the wasted costs order cannot survive when the litigant has waived his costs orders against the other party.

Edward Cross for the solicitors.

Anthony Kefford for the husband.

Costs orders were made against the wife in the course of ancillary relief proceedings and connected proceedings in which the husband’s brother intervened to assert an interest in the former matrimonial home.

In January 2007, the husband applied for a wasted costs order against the wife’s solicitors (the firm) in respect of both sets of proceedings. The following day, the wife applied for an adjournment of the final ancillary relief hearing. The application was dismissed, the district judge ordering the firm to show cause why it should not pay the husband’s costs thereof. The husband and wife subsequently reached an agreement

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