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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll