header-logo header-logo

08 November 2024 / Sophie Houghton
Issue: 8093 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

High Court departs from conventional ‘costs in the case’ order

Sophie Houghton on why it doesn’t pay to put forward overly ambitious figures in costs budgets
  • Parties should not presume that following a costs management hearing a ‘costs in the case’ order will be made.

Recently there have been two decisions by Master Thornett sitting in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court in respect of the appropriate costs order to make following a costs management hearing. In both cases, the master made clear that it should not be presumed by the parties that an order for ‘costs in the case’ will be made following this type of hearing. Although an order for ‘costs in the case’ is frequently made at the end of a costs management hearing, parties may be in the habit of thinking that this will always happen, which is not the case.

Disproportionality

The first of these decisions is Worcester v Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB), which involved a clinical negligence claim concerning the defendant’s treatment of the claimant’s mental health. Following

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll