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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll