header-logo header-logo

18 March 2010 / Jonathan Upton
Issue: 7409 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Lying litigants beware!

In a number of recent cases the courts have penalised a “successful” but dishonest party with a punitive costs order

In a number of recent cases the courts have penalised a “successful” but dishonest party with a punitive costs order. CPR 44.3(2) provides the starting point. The general rule is that the successful party gets an order for his costs to be paid by the losing party, but it provides the court “may” make a different order. CPR 44.3(4) provides for certain matters that “must” be taken into account. These include the parties’ conduct and whether an offer to settle under Pt 36 or otherwise has been made.

In Straker v Tudor Rose [2007] EWCA Civ 368, [2007] All ER (D) 224 (Apr) Waller LJ agreed with Longmore LJ in Barnes v Time Talk UK Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 402 at para [28] that, particularly in a commercial context, where the claim is for money, in deciding who is the successful party “the most important

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll