header-logo header-logo

Indemnity costs

24 January 2014
Issue: 7591 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and other companies [2013] EWHC 4278 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 74 (Jan)

The basic rule was that a successful party would be entitled to his costs on the standard basis. The discretion was a wide one to be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the case. To award costs against an unsuccessful party on an indemnity scale was a departure from the norm. There therefore had to be something, whether it was the conduct of the claimant or the circumstances of the case, which took the case outside the norm. It was not necessary that the claimant should be guilty of dishonesty or moral blame. Unreasonableness in the conduct of proceedings and the raising of particular allegations or in the manner of raising them might suffice. So might the pursuit of a speculative claim involving a high risk of failure, or the making of allegations of dishonesty that turned out to be misconceived, or the conduct of an extensive publicity campaign designed to drive the party

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll