header-logo header-logo

07 December 2012
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Summary blushes

Is it common practice to refuse a party his costs on an interlocutory civil hearing...

Is it common practice to refuse a party his costs on an interlocutory civil hearing where he has been successful, simply because he has failed to file and serve his statement of costs in a CPR compliant way?

It would be rare to do so. CPR PD 44.13.6 provides that a failure “will be taken into account...in deciding what order to make...and about the costs of any further hearing or detailed assessment that may be necessary as a result of the failure”. The judge may put the hearing back to allow a statement to be compiled and/or served and the paying party an opportunity to consider it and then summarily assess later in the list or adjourn to another day for assessment—and this must be before the same judge—while at the same time indicating that the receiving party is unlikely to receive costs of reattending and an allowance may be made for the reattendance costs of the receiving party. The amount

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll