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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll