A tall order?

Julia Mowbray explains why costs capping is exceptional

The Civil Procedure Rules Committee consciously adopted a conservative approach to costs capping orders in CPR 44.18, which came into force in April 2009. The decision in Derek Barr & Others v Biffa Waste Services [2009] EWHC 2444 (TCC), All ER (D) 176 (Oct) underlines that the making of costs capping orders will indeed be exceptional.

Pursuant to a group litigation order (GLO) 163 householders sued Biffa Waste Services (Biffa) regarding a landfill site. Biffa sought an order limiting the claimants’ recoverable costs to £1m, the level of cover under the claimants’ after the event insurance (ATE) policy. The claimants’ solicitors were working under a CFA with a 100% uplift.

Coulson J summarised the law on costs capping orders as follows:

A party seeking a costs capping order will need to demonstrate that both CPR 44.18(5) and CPR 44.18(6) are met. CPR 44.18(5) provides that the court may make an order if:
(a) it is in the

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

A tall order?

Julia Mowbray explains why costs capping is exceptional

Coulson J summarised the law on costs capping orders as follows:

A party seeking a costs capping order will need to demonstrate that both CPR 44.18(5) and CPR 44.18(6) are met. CPR 44.18(5) provides that the court may make an order if:
(a) it is in the

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

Error message

A tall order?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

HFW—Simon Petch

Freeths—Richard Lockhart