header-logo header-logo

Summary blushes

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

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