header-logo header-logo

Non-party costs orders: are the tides turning?

29 November 2024 / Sarah Jane Cartlidge
Issue: 8096 / Categories: Features , Costs , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail
199163
Successful non-party costs orders against credit hire operators are swelling in number: Sarah Jane Cartlidge considers whether these are just a drop in the ocean
  • 2023-24 has seen a number of persuasive or binding cases where the courts considered it just to make a non-party costs order against a credit hire operator.
  • The hire companies involved in the cases were considered to be the real beneficiaries of the credit hire claim and were intrinsically linked to the litigation.
  • There was no requirement to prove a link between the hire company’s involvement in the litigation and the costs incurred.

In 2023-24, there has been a number of high-profile cases where defendants have been successful in obtaining non-party costs orders (NPCOs) against credit hire operators (CHOs) in cases where credit hire is claimed, and the defendants had obtained a costs order which the claimant themselves had not been able to discharge.

Is this a turn in the tide? Are these cases gamechangers in sending a message

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll