header-logo header-logo

Indemnity costs: parties behaving badly?

25 November 2022 / Masood Ahmed , Lal Akhter
Issue: 8004 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
101295
Masood Ahmed & Lal Akhter consider the high hurdle to clear before a court will grant indemnity costs on the basis of unreasonable conduct
  • The recent decision of Evans v R&V Allgemeine Verischerung AG provides an important reminder of the approach the courts will take when considering whether to make an indemnity costs order.
  • A court will only make an indemnity costs order where the conduct of the parties was ‘out of the norm’ and each case will be determined on its own particular facts.
  • An application for indemnity costs must be supported with strong and convincing evidence which clearly demonstrates that the conduct complained of is ‘out of the norm’.

In civil litigation, costs will either be assessed on the standard basis or the indemnity basis; the default position is the standard basis. A court may, however, order costs on the indemnity basis if the circumstances of the case justify such an order being made. The effect of an indemnity costs order is to disapply the

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
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
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll