header-logo header-logo

01 April 2010 / The Kings’ Chambers Costs Team
Issue: 7411 & 7412 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

At the double

The Kings’ Chambers costs team clarify costs arguments after two recent decisions

After a period of some uncertainty, the Court of Appeal in two recent cases, Drew v Whitbread [2010] EWCA Civ 53 and O’Beirne v Hudson [2010] EWCA Civ 52, has clarified the law relating to what arguments on costs must be put before the trial and costs judge respectively. The two cases were heard consecutively before the same Court of Appeal and judgment in each was handed down at the same time. In both cases the court was assisted by Senior Costs Judge Hurst. The main judgments were delivered by Waller LJ, with whom Hooper and Etherton LJJ agreed.

Background

These two judgments should be considered against the background of the judgments in Aaron v Shelton [2004] EWCA 1162 (QB), [2004] 3 All ER 561 and Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding (Costs) [2006] EWCA Civ 1660, [2007] 2 All ER 983.

Drew v Whitbread was a second

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

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Chair of the Association of Pension Lawyers joins as partner

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Group names Shakespeare Martineau partner head of Sheffield office

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Four legal directors promoted to partner across UK offices

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll