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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll