header-logo header-logo

24 November 2017 / Clive Freedman KC
Issue: 7771 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Champagne without costs

Costs follow the event, except for respondents in the Court of Appeal who successfully resist permission to appeal, as Clive Freedman QC explains

The changes in the rules relating to permission to appeal in the Court of Appeal have attracted considerable attention. The removal of the applicant’s right to renew a permission application orally is a major change. Refusal of permission to appeal is the end of the road; the road is now shorter still when permission on a written application is refused.

In the changes which came into effect on 3 October 2016, there is a subtle change as regards whether a respondent should prepare submissions in response to a permission application. In short, it is to encourage, rather than direct, a respondent to make a written submission. However, the normal rule for a respondent at the permission stage remains that it must bear its own costs of the exercise even if permission is not given.

Prior to the change in the rules, CPR Pt 52C para 19 provided that a respondent need not take

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll