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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll