header-logo header-logo

Waste not...

14 September 2012 / Lehna Hewitt , Kim Beatson
Issue: 7529 / Categories: Features , Family , Costs
printer mail-detail
istock_000013952999medium_4

Kim Beatson & Lehna Hewitt track the latest developments surrounding wasted costs orders in family proceedings

A legal adviser whose conduct is improper, unreasonable or negligent can be ordered to pay the costs incurred by their own client or another party as a result of such conduct.

The term “legal adviser” has been broadly interpreted and could include counsel, solicitors or another representative. Counsel’s responsibility may include drafting and settling proceedings and is not limited to advocacy (Brown v Bennett [2002] 2 All ER 273).

A wasted costs order can even be made against expert witnesses who cause significant expense as a result of failing in their duty to the court (Phillips and Other v Symes and Others 2 [2004] EWHC 2330 (Ch), [2005] 4 All ER 519).

Making a wasted costs order

The power of the court to make a wasted costs order is found in s 51(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and now

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