header-logo header-logo

07 February 2008 / Neil Forsyth , Marcus Thomson
Issue: 7307 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Damages , Costs
printer mail-detail

When costs become damages...

The courts are right to restrict the amount of damages levelled against defendants, say Marcus Thomson and Neil Forsyth

A common area of dispute in civil cases is how far a claimant, who has to incur legal costs against a third party as a result of a wrong committed by the defendant and fails to recover those costs in full from the third party, can then recover them as damages from the defendant. Claimants argue that they should be compensated for those costs in full, or at least on a Solicitors Act 1974 or indemnity basis of assessment. Defendants argue that claimants should be restricted to costs recoverable on a standard basis detailed assessment. The difference can be substantial. The argument is complicated by changes in recent years to the basis of inter partes assessment of costs. Until 1986 a successful party awarded costs was normally restricted to “party and party” costs, which were defined as costs necessarily incurred. However,

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