Date  Headline

  • 29.07.2010
    Hay v Szterbin [2010] EWHC 1967 (Ch)
    • Key issues: apportionment of costs, High Court

      In this case, the Claimant issued proceedings against 3 Defendants.  The Third Defendant was ordered to pay costs which were only in relation to the claim against them and were not liable for any costs against their co-Defendants.

      The costs judge rejected the Claimant’s submission that any costs common to all 3 Defendants were to be apportioned, and so only the specifically-Third Defendant costs could be claimed against them.

      On appeal it was held that any costs which could be divided into costs against the Third Defendant were covered by the Order, i.e. extra costs incurred as a result of the claim against the Third Defendant, but any common costs which were to be apportioned were not covered by the Order and so not recoverable from the Third Defendant.

  • 26.07.2010
    Clarke v Maltby [2010] EWHC 1856 (QB)
    • Key issues: Basis of assessment, High Court, Indemnity Basis, party’s conduct

      This case was concerned with whether the Claimant’s costs were to be assessed on the Standard or Indemnity basis.

      In the main action, the Defendant’s counter-schedule of damages questioned whether the Claimant’s claims were genuine, and had implied there had been exaggeration including by undertaking a lengthy cross-examination of the Claimant.  The Judge considered that it went far beyond testing the Claimant and even though the Defendant suggested that there was deliberate exaggeration, this was not pleaded.  Nor was there any medical evidence to support such a position, and in fact the evidence dismissed such a suggestion.  The counter-schedule also suggested that the Claimant’s Solicitors had influenced the claim.

      In the circumstances, based on the Defendant’s conduct, costs were allowed on the Indemnity basis.

Thomas Legal Costs

Token House
12 Token House Yard

Thames House
18 Park Street

T: 020 7073 2600
F: 020 7073 2955
E: info@thomas-legal.com