header-logo header-logo

07 December 2012
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Summary blushes

Is it common practice to refuse a party his costs on an interlocutory civil hearing...

Is it common practice to refuse a party his costs on an interlocutory civil hearing where he has been successful, simply because he has failed to file and serve his statement of costs in a CPR compliant way?

It would be rare to do so. CPR PD 44.13.6 provides that a failure “will be taken into account...in deciding what order to make...and about the costs of any further hearing or detailed assessment that may be necessary as a result of the failure”. The judge may put the hearing back to allow a statement to be compiled and/or served and the paying party an opportunity to consider it and then summarily assess later in the list or adjourn to another day for assessment—and this must be before the same judge—while at the same time indicating that the receiving party is unlikely to receive costs of reattending and an allowance may be made for the reattendance costs of the receiving party. The amount to be paid may then be quickly resolved.

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