header-logo header-logo

18 March 2010 / Jonathan Upton
Issue: 7409 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Lying litigants beware!

In a number of recent cases the courts have penalised a “successful” but dishonest party with a punitive costs order

In a number of recent cases the courts have penalised a “successful” but dishonest party with a punitive costs order. CPR 44.3(2) provides the starting point. The general rule is that the successful party gets an order for his costs to be paid by the losing party, but it provides the court “may” make a different order. CPR 44.3(4) provides for certain matters that “must” be taken into account. These include the parties’ conduct and whether an offer to settle under Pt 36 or otherwise has been made.

In Straker v Tudor Rose [2007] EWCA Civ 368, [2007] All ER (D) 224 (Apr) Waller LJ agreed with Longmore LJ in Barnes v Time Talk UK Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 402 at para [28] that, particularly in a commercial context, where the claim is for money, in deciding who is the successful party “the most important thing is to identify the party who is to pay

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll