header-logo header-logo

Solicitors must pay ‘disturbing’ costs

26 February 2020
Issue: 7876 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
A judge was right to strike out a claim for occupational deafness where proceedings were launched while the employer company was dissolved, the Court of Appeal has held

The court also noted the ‘most disturbing’ fact that ‘the costs expended on this satellite litigation… stand at a little less than £50,000 in relation to just one defendant to a claim worth only £5,000.’ It ordered that the appellant’s solicitors, not the client, foot the bill for costs incurred ‘in this court or in the County Court at either level’.

Delivering its judgment in Cowley v LW Carlisle [2020] EWCA Civ 227, the court described as ‘misguided’ the commencement of proceedings against LW Carlisle when it was known the company had been dissolved and without taking prompt steps towards restoring it to the register.

Patrick McBrien, DWF director and solicitor for the respondent, said: ‘It is pleasing that the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of a District Judge and then a Circuit Judge to strike out this deafness claim brought against a dissolved defendant, the claimant having failed to take the fundamental step of restoring the former company to the register before starting the litigation.

‘The Court held that irrespective of issues of jurisdiction arising out of CPR 11, the District Judge had a freestanding right to strike the claim out on grounds of abuse of process and as part of his case management powers. The Court of Appeal held that strike out was a reasonable exercise of the DJ's discretion in the circumstances of this case.

‘The judgment expressly recognises that insurers and those with a potential financial interest are placed in a difficult position procedurally when claims are brought against former policyholders who are now dissolved. The judgment is likely to be welcomed by the market, as discouraging such claims. 

‘The judgment also serves as a warning to claimant solicitors in relation to costs as the Court of Appeal has clearly indicated that it will be the claimant’s solicitors (not the claimant) who will have to bear the costs of the initial strike out application and the two appeals.’

Issue: 7876 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll