header-logo header-logo

04 August 2011
Issue: 7477 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Grand v Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 902, [2011] All ER (D) 249 (Jul)

In deciding what, if any costs order to make against a litigant in person, the court had to have regard to the considerations in CPR 44.3, which showed that the court had a discretion both as to whether to make an order for the payment of costs and if so, as to the amount of any costs. In deciding whether to make any costs order, the court had to have regard to all the circumstances, including: (i) whether the applicant for costs had succeeded on part of her appeal, even if she had not been wholly successful; (ii) whether it was reasonable for her to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue; and (iii) whether, having succeeded in her appeal, in whole or in part, she had exaggerated it. There was a cap on what the claimant could recover, namely two-thirds of the amount that would have been allowed had she been represented by a lawyer. Part 44.4 CPR required the court only to allow costs that were proportionate to the matters in

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll