header-logo header-logo

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

Costs

Dolphin Quays Development Ltd v Mills [2008] EWCA Civ 385, [2008] 4 All ER 58

In the vast majority of cases, it would be unjust to make an award of costs against a person who is not a party to the proceedings. Consequently, an order for the payment of costs by a non-party will always be exceptional, but “exceptional” in this context means no more than outside the ordinary run of cases where parties pursue or defend claims for their own benefit and at their own expense.

The ultimate question in any such exceptional case is whether or not it is just to make the order. Injustice might be caused where litigation is conducted by a receiver on behalf of an insolvent company for the benefit of secured creditors; therefore, in appropriate cases, a non-party costs order against a receiver or against the secured creditor may be made, especially where the non-party is the “real party”. 

A costs order against receivers will be made more readily where the company is in liquidation and the receiver’s agency has terminated, or where the successful party has not been able to obtain security for costs. Impropriety or unreasonableness is also a factor in the exercise of the discretion.

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll