Costs Law Brief

CONDUCT AND COSTS

Since 2004 costs practitioners and costs judges have had to wrestle with the issue of what is meant by ‘conduct’. Parties had to draw up battle lines based on the often artificial distinction between the type of conduct which is relevant to CPR 44.5(3) and the type of conduct which—
according to receiving parties—could only be reflected in costs orders.
This state of affairs followed Aaron v Shelton [2004] EWHC 1162 (QB), [2004] 3 All ER 561 in which Mr Justice Jack indicated that if a paying party was going to rely on the conduct or misconduct of the receiving party to seek a reduction in the costs to be paid, the time to raise that factor was at the end of the trial and not before the costs judge at the time of
assessment.

As is often the way with decisions