header-logo header-logo

​Declaring a “winner”

22 July 2016 / Claire Pennells , Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7708 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Claire Pennells & Masood Ahmed examine the application of CPR 44.2 in cases of group litigation

When making a judicial determination on the allocation of litigation costs, two decisions fall to the deciding judge under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 44.2: establishing which of the litigating parties is the “winner”, and applying judicial discretion to determine any discounts or changes to awarded costs necessary to reflect elements of the case. These tasks are made exponentially more difficult in group litigations, where both the defendants and the claimants may have grounds for considering themselves the “winner” for the purposes of cost allocation. For those parties in the group litigation who succeed in their individual claims, the logical conclusion is that they have “won” their case and, by extension, payment of their costs should be covered by the “losing” defendant; but in the event that the winning parties ultimately make up a minority of the larger claimant group, it could be argued that, as a whole, the claimants are the “losing” party, responsible for the defendant’s costs. In 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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll