With the impending introduction of the Intermediate Track ushering in the much broader fixed costs regime for most money claims of up to £100,000.00 – a firm grasp on contractual costs is more important than ever. Gomba Holdings (U.K.) Ltd. and Ors v Minories Finance Ltd. and Ors (No. 2) [1993] CH 171 is the…

The substantive claim Craig Leigh was instructed to represent the claimant at trial concerning a claim brought against her mortgage lender (“D1”) arising as a result of the payment of commission by D1 to the broker that she had engaged to secure her the loan. The claimant alleged that the payment of commission was a…

Halton concerned a rather unusual attempt to avoid the problems arising from failing to serve the claim form in time in a statutory review of a costs order made in planning proceedings. The facts and some background To challenge a costs order made by the Secretary of State (“SoS”) an application to the High Court…

Highlights The facts The procedural history of the claim is somewhat convoluted. However, the relevant facts are relatively straightforward: The Claimant was represented by BBK and accepted a Part 36 offer from the Defendant in respect of a Personal Injury claim to which QOCS applied before issue of proceedings. It being agreed that the Defendant…

Introduction AXX v Zajac [2022] EWHC 2463 (KB) is a High Court case that dealt with the application of the provisions of PD 1A, which is a new creation of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) directed at vulnerable litigants. The case was decided in 2022 and appears to be the first of its kind after…

Highlight The facts A claim was brought by Mr Wilkins for false imprisonment against Serco Ltd. Mr Wilkins was being held on remand at a prison run by Serco. He was charged with common assault. He plead guilty to that offence and on the 9 February 2017 the Magistrates imposed a suspended prison sentence at…

Background of the case After the claimant accepted a Part 36 offer well-outside of the 21-day relevant period for acceptance, the usual order for costs was made that meant the claimant was to pay the defendant costs incurred after the relevant period had expired.  Although some costs were agreed for the defendant between the parties,…

Except where there is a specific rule about allocation (which is outside the ambit of this article), the primary mover for allocation is the first factor in rule 26.8(1): the financial value of the claim.  An overview of the rules in relation to allocation CPR 26.7 and 26.8 provide the general principles for allocation. At…

University Hospitals of Derby & Burton NHS Foundation Trust v Harrison  “A court making an order under r.36.22(9) is not making an order for damages and interest in favour of the claimant” Background  The claim arises from an action for damages for clinical negligence. While the general case history has little importance when considering the…

This was the conclusion reached by Costs Judge Rowley in the matter of Wright v Person Or Persons Unknown Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website bitcoin.org [2022] EWHC 2982 (SCCO) (23 November 2022) when he determined that “…the claimant will be entitled to request a default costs certificate if the defendant does…