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

Muckle LLP—Rachael Chapman

Muckle LLP—Rachael Chapman

Sports, education and charities practice welcomes senior associate

Ellisons—Carla Jones

Ellisons—Carla Jones

Partner and head of commercial litigation joins in Chelmsford

Freeths—Louise Mahon

Freeths—Louise Mahon

Firm strengthens Glasgow corporate practice with partner hire

NEWS
One in five in-house lawyers suffer ‘high’ or ‘severe’ work-related stress, according to a report by global legal body, the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC)
The Legal Ombudsman’s (LeO’s) plea for a budget increase has been rejected by the Law Society and accepted only ‘with reluctance’ by conveyancers
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
back-to-top-scroll