header-logo header-logo

Witness expenses

01 January 2010
Issue: 7397 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Is there any limit on the expenses which can be awarded against an unsuccessful party?

Is there any limit on the expenses which can be awarded against an unsuccessful party for the travelling and accommodation expenses etc incurred by the successful party or its witnesses in attending a hearing? I have the cost of foreign travel particularly in mind.

No, subject to reasonableness and proportionality. Dealing with a case justly which parties are enjoined to do by CPR 1.1 involves, so far as practicable, saving expense and, in relation to proportionality, taking into account the amount of money involved in the claim, the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues and the financial position of each party.

These principles and the requirement for the parties to cooperate apply to costs as to every other aspect of a case and mean that consideration should be given to telephone or video-link evidence where a witness’s attendance at court would be expensive.

The likely expenses should also be made clear to the other side as early

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