header-logo header-logo

19 February 2009
Issue: 7357 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Harrison v Harrison [2009] All ER (D) 61 (Feb)

Legal Profession

Wasted costs orders (under s 51(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981) are remedies of last resort. The legal representative  should not be called on to reply unless an apparently strong prima facie case has been made against him. Where the responding lawyer is required to show cause why an order should not be made, the burden of proof does not shift away from the applicant, who must establish his case. Even where the court is satisfied as to conduct and causation, it has to consider whether to exercise the discretion to make the order and to what extent. Orders should only be made under s 51(6) where, and to the extent that, the conduct so characterised has been established as directly causative of wasted costs. Applications for wasted costs are usually best left until after the end of the trial.

Issue: 7357 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll