header-logo header-logo

02 October 2008
Issue: 7339 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Costs

Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd [2008] EWHC 2003 (TCC)

(i) Where cases are settled, it will normally not be possible to say that one or other party has been successful, and so in those cases the order will be no order as to costs; the court should not depart from the normal order unless it is in a clear position to do so on a proper basis of agreed or determined facts which enable the court to decide what other order should be made.

(ii) Rule 44.4(1)(b) permits a court to award indemnity costs where the facts of the case and/or the conduct of the parties was such as to take the case out of the norm; before such an order can be made there should normally be a significant level of unreasonableness or otherwise inappropriate conduct in that party’s pre-litigation dealings with the successful party or in relation to the institution and conduct of the litigation.

(iii) Part 44.3(5)(d) applies where a party has exaggerated his claim and is relevant where the exaggeration prevented settlement of the dispute at an early stage.

Issue: 7339 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

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 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
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
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

back-to-top-scroll