Costs - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 61 cases, and was prepared on 13 May 2012.

Village Residents' Association Ltd -v- An Bord Pleanala (No 2) [2000] 4 IR 321
2000 Laffoy J	Northern Ireland, Costs, Administrative	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	(Irish High Court) The court faced the first application for a Protective Costs Order (PCO) in the High Court of Ireland. Held: There was jurisdiction to make such an order, but it was difficult in the abstract to identify the type or types of cases in which the interests of justice would require the court to deal with costs in the manner indicated by a PCO and it would be unwise to attempt to do so. The principles in ex p CPAG seemed to meet the fundamental rubric that the interests of justice should require a PCO to be made. An order was not made in this case.

Murria -v- Lord Chancellor
11 Jan 2000 QBD	Legal Aid, Costs
	The test, when assessing the rate of pay for legal aid purposes of whether a case 'related to fraud' was whether the proceedings, in whole or in part, were about serious or complex fraud, irrespective of the contents of the indictment. There is no general offence known to law of fraud as such and the act could only be intended to relate to such issues in a wider sense than the content of the indictment.
	Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) Regulations 1989 (1989 No 344)

Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh -v- Koshy and Others
13 Jan 2000 ChD	Legal Aid, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
	Once a legal aid certificate is revoked the party is deemed by statute never to have had the benefit of a legal aid certificate. The rules relating to assessment of costs which applied when a party had legal aid did not therefore apply. An order however which has once been made cannot be varied subsequently by reference to those rules, even if the order was made in the light of them.
	Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 130 - Civil Procedure Rules Part 3.1(7)

Barclays Plc -v- Villers [2000] EWHC 197 (Comm)
25 Jan 2000 ComC	Insurance, Costs	Casemap 1 Cites
	Re-insurers refused to pay the costs re-imbursed by the insurers to the claimant of conducting the defence of a court action, saying that they were excessive. They sought a detailed assessment of the bill. The defendants argued that this matter should be dealt with by arbitration under the terms of the settlement of the main proceedings.
	Solicitors Act 1974 71(1)(4)
	Link[s] omitted

Society of Lloyd's -v- Jaffray [2000] EWHC Commercial 174
26 Jan 2000 ComC	Insurance, Costs	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Burgess -v- British Steel and Another
3 Feb 2000 CA	Costs, Personal Injury
	The plaintiff had failed to beat a payment in, but the judge refused the defendants their costs after the payment in because a medical report filed before the payment in had accused the claimant of malingering and he claimed to have gone on to disprove that allegation. It was held that this was insufficient to justify departure from the general rule. The malingering had not been the central issue, and that could be dealt with by apportioning the costs between the issues.

Diacou -v- Staden [2000] EWHC 9003 (Costs)
4 Feb 2000 SCCO	Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Morris -v- the Lord Chancellor [2000] EWHC 9001 (Costs)
4 Feb 2000 SCCO	Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (In Receivership) -v- Koshy and Others
8 Feb 2000 ChD	Insolvency, Costs	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A company could give several people the power to appoint a receiver in respect of different elements of its assets. If this was done there was no fundamental reason why such appointments should not be put in effect. The appointment of one receiver did not, in the absence of explicit limitations to the contrary exhaust the power to appoint receivers.

Maes Finance Ltd and Another -v- W G Edwards & Partners and Another (1) 6 of 200
11 Feb 2000 SCCO Mr Justice Elias	Costs	Casemap 1 Cites
	The judge was asked to consider whether the principles in Eastwood were now out of date with regards to the relative costs of employing in house solicitors, as against an outside firm. Held: The principles in Eastwood still held, and were binding. In calculating the 'A' element of costs for an in-house solicitor, the appropriate approach was to follow the same method as would be applied in the case of an independent solicitor.

Maes Finance Ltd and Another -v- W G Edwards & Partners and Another (2) No 2 of 2000
11 Feb 2000 SCCO Mr Justice Elias Sitting with Assessors	Costs	Casemap 1 Cites

Sony Music Entertainment Inc and another -v- Prestige Records Ltd and another
17 Feb 2000 ChD	Costs, Intellectual Property
	On a case management hearing, the defendants made admissions on which judgment was entered. The master reserved but later awarded costs. The defendants appealed against the costs order saying that the claimants had proceeded unnecessarily aggressively and had failed to disclose evidence in a timely way. The appeal took effect as a rehearing. Intellectual property cases should be subject to the same overriding objectives as in other cases. In this case the order was correct. An appeal to a High Court judge against an order for costs, was a rehearing, and such a judge was free to exercise his discretion accordingly. Where however the issue related to something specifically within the knowledge of the first instance judge such as the proportionality of the costs to the matter in cause this was to be disturbed only rarely. That the award was made on what was essentially a case management conference should not make a difference of principle.

Levy -v- Legal Aid Board
24 Feb 2000 ChD	Costs, Legal Aid, Insolvency
	Although an order for costs might in some circumstances not be provable in an insolvency, that did not prevent a statutory demand based upon that debt. Whether it was provable would become clear in the later insolvency proceedings. The court had a discretion to found a petition on an unproveable debt where there were special circumstances such as, for example other debts which were provable.
	Insolvency Rules 1986/1925 12 3 (2) (a)

Flynn -v- Robin Thompson and Another [2000] EWHC 9004 (Costs)
25 Feb 2000 SCCO	Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Locabail (UK) Ltd -v- Bayfield Properties Ltd and Others (No 3) [1999] EWHC 261 (Ch)
29 Feb 2000 ChD Lawrence Collins DJ	Costs	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	It can be proper to award costs against a third party to an action where his behaviour had fallen short of strictly maintaining the action. Here a husband had funded his wife's defence knowing that she would be unable to support any order for costs against her, he had identified very closely with the defence, and his evidence had been seen to be partial and indifferent to the factual issues, and the court had dismissed the facts alleged to underpin the defence proffered.
	Link[s] omitted

Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Liquidation) -v- Ali and Others (No 4) [2000] ICR 1410
2 Mar 2000 CA Chadwick and Buxton LJJ,	Civil Procedure Rules, Costs	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant and his former employers had compromised the employee's claim for damages, but the claimant then sought to sue for stigma damages after these were awarded elsewhere. The general language of the release was sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the claims which Mr Naeem sought to pursue. Held: Since all the claims known to the parties were identified and met in full, the broad language of the release must be taken to refer to other claims, not at that stage known or identified. However, the claimant's appeal was allowed since it would have been inconscionable to allow the company to rely on the release. The overriding principle now to be applied was for the judge to attempt to do justice between the parties. Though costs might ordinarily be awarded to a successful party, the court could make a different order if justice so required in the particular facts of any case.

B Hedden -v- Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care EAT/125/97
9 Mar 2000 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles	Employment, Costs	Casemap 1 Cites
	EAT Unfair Dismissal - Reason for Dismissal

Mealing Mcleod -v- Common Professional Examination Board [2000] EWHC 9007 (Costs)
13 Mar 2000 SCCO	Costs, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Leyvand -v- Barasch and Others
16 Mar 2000 ChD	Costs, Litigation Practice
	In a partnership dispute the defendants sought an order for security for costs against the claimant, saying that he was ordinarily resident abroad. It was held that under the new regime such an order would not follow as a matter of course. The sole test was what was the just in the particular case. The existence of assets within the jurisdiction was relevant, and in this case the claimant had lived for a long time here, and had substantial assets here, and such an order was unnecessary.

Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (In Receivership) -v- Koshy and Others (No 2)
30 Mar 2000 ChD	Costs, Civil Procedure Rules	Casemap
	The new Civil Procedure Rules had not substantially affected the rules on costs following the event of a trial. The discretion in a judge as to the order for costs had been correctly stated in Elgindata, and approved in Phonographic Performance Ltd v AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd.

Cormack and Another -v- Washbourne, Formerly Trading As Washbourne & Co (A Firm)
30 Mar 2000 CA	Costs, Professional Negligence, Insurance
	Where a claimant succeeded in his claim against a party, it was wrong to award costs against an insurer third party who had supported the defence where such costs exceeded the limit of liability under the financial limit of the indemnity. The insurer had been given conduct of the litigation, and only at a late stage informed the claimant of the limit on indemnity, and after the costs already exceeded that limit. Were these circumstances exceptional? No, the action of the insurers was not sufficiently self-motivated, and had been in good faith.

Armitage -v- Nurse [2000] EWHC 9008 (Costs)
11 Apr 2000 SCCO	Costs	Casemap 1 Cites
	[ Bailii ]

In Re Hickman & Rose (Solicitors) (Wasted Costs Order) (No 10 of 1999)
19 Apr 2000 CACD Lord Justice Clarke Mr Justice Kay And The Recorder Of Bristol His Honour Judge Dyer	Legal Professions, Costs	Casemap 1 Cites
	After a trial was aborted, the solicitors, acting on counsel's advice made an application for bail under the rules applying to the custody time limits. An unreported case had already decided the point, namely that once the jury had ben sworn, the limits ceased to apply. Though counsel, once told of the decision sought to withdraw the application, the solicitors were ordered to pay the costs of the application personally. Held: The order was set aside. It could not be said that the solicitors had acted improperly unreasonably or negligently. On such appeals it is important for those applying to make available transcripts of the events at the lower court.
	Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19A

Regina -v- Common Professional Examination Board, Ex Parte Mealing-Mcclead [2000] EWCA Civ 138
19 Apr 2000 CA	Costs, Legal Professions, Banking	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A party was required to pay money into court before pursuing an appeal. She borrowed money for this purpose but on the express condition that it should be used for this purpose only and was not to become part of her general assets. The money was paid into court, but the appeal was compromised in her favour. The judge ordered payment out to her opponent, to satisfy earlier unsatisfied costs orders. Her request for leave to appeal succeeded. The trust was as between her and the bank, and no need of others being notified arose. As trustee for the bank, she had a duty to act to recover it, and so had locus standi.
	Link[s] omitted

Johnson -v- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
20 Apr 2000 QBD	Criminal Practice, Costs
	A defendant appealed to the Crown Court against a conviction for causing unnecessary suffering to animals. Her appeal was dismissed, and the Crown Court awarded also the full costs of the prosecution before the magistrates, who had made a reduced award of costs. Though there was no right of appeal on a question of costs, the Crown Court had sufficient power to make an order. A prosecutor seeking a variation should make his intention clear, and set out his reasons.
	Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 18(1) - Supreme Court Act 1981 48(2)

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council -v- Booth [2000] EWHC Admin 444
10 May 2000 Admn	Licensing, Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Bradford City Metropolitan District Council -v- Booth (2000) COD 338; (2000) 164 JP 485
10 May 2000 QBD Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill	Magistrates, Local Government, Costs, Licensing	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed. Held: The discretion given to magistrates to award such costs as it feels are just and reasonable does not mean that costs should always and normally follow the event. An authority with a duty to make decisions which suffered a successful challenge to that decision, but where the fault in the decision fell short of being unreasonable, dishonest, or improper, should not normally be ordered to pay the costs. The financial effect on the parties should be assessed, but such challenges are part of the expense of running a business. Section 64 was concerned with both liability for costs and their amount. The only statutory restriction on the power of the magistrates was that they could not make an order for costs against a successful party. Bingham CJ said: "The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith." Later he continued "It seems to me that the justices in this case misdirected themselves, first, in relying on a principle that costs should follow the event, that misdirection being compounded by their view that the reference in section 64 to the order being just and reasonable applied to quantum only. On the other hand, in my judgment the submissions made by Mr Blair-Gould on behalf of the local authority go too far the other way since to give effect to the principle for which he contends would deprive the justices of any discretion to view the case in the round which is in my judgment what section 64 intends. I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised is three propositions: 1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates' court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them. 2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection. 3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour; and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged."
	Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1) - Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 62(1)(b)

Anthony -v- Ellis & Fairbairn (A Firm) [2000] EWHC 9009 (Costs); [2002] 2 Costs LR 277
12 May 2000 SCCO Sir Oliver Popplewell	Costs	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The court considered a solicitor's bill which vastly exceeded the estimate given.
	Link[s] omitted

Rm Broudie & Co -v- the Lord Chancellor [2000] EWHC 9010 (Costs)
17 May 2000 SCCO	Costs
	[ Bailii ]

Arklow Investments Ltd -v- Maclean (Unreported) 19 May 2000
19 May 2000 Fisher J	Commonwealth, Costs	Casemap 1 Cites
	(High Court of New Zealand) The court considered the potential personal responsibility of a directors for costs incurred by the company in litigation: "Where a person is a major shareholder and dominant director in a company which brings proceedings, that alone will not justify a third party costs order. Something additional is normally warranted as a matter of discretion. The critical element will often be a fresh injection of capital for the known purpose of funding litigation. ... the overall rationale [is] that it is wrong to allow someone to fund litigation in the hope of gaining a benefit without a corresponding risk that that person will share in the costs of the proceedings if they ultimately fail."

Petrotrade Inc -v- Texaco Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 512; [2002] 1 Costs LR; [2002] 1 WLR 947; [2001] 4 All ER,
23 May 2000 CA	Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Petrograde Inc -v- Texaco Ltd Unreported, 23 May 2000
23 May 2000 CA Lord Woolf MR	Costs, Civil Procedure Rules	Casemap
	The award of costs under Rule 36.21 on an indemnity basis is not intended to be penal, and the court must look at what was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Lord Woolf said: "However, it would be wrong to regard the rule [36.21] as producing penal consequences. An order for indemnity costs does not enable a claimant to receive more costs than he has incurred. Its practical effect is to avoid his costs being assessed at a lesser figure. When assessing costs on the standard basis the court will only allow costs `which are proportionate to the matters in issue' and `resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably incurred or reasonably proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party'. On the other hand, where the costs are assessed on an indemnity basis, the issue of proportionality does not have to be considered. The court only considers whether the costs were unreasonably incurred or for an unreasonable amount. The court will then resolve any doubt in favour of the receiving party. Even on an indemnity basis, however, the receiving party is restricted to recovering only the amount of costs which have been incurred (see Part 44.3 and Part 44.5). The ability of the court to award costs on an indemnity basis and interest at an enhanced rate should not be regarded as penal because orders for costs, even when made on an indemnity basis, never actually compensate a claimant for having to come to court to bring proceedings. . . The power to order indemnity costs or higher rate interest is a means of achieving a fairer result for a claimant. If a defendant involves a claimant in proceedings after an offer has been made, and in the event, the result is no more favourable to the defendant than that which would have been achieved if the claimant's offer had been accepted without the need for those proceedings, the message of Part 36.21 is that, prima facie, it is just to make an indemnity order for costs and for interest at an enhanced rate to be awarded. However, the indemnity order need not be for the entire proceedings nor, as I have already indicated, need the award of interest be for a particular period or at a particular rate. It must not however exceed the figure of 10 per cent referred to in Part 36."
	Civil Procedure Rules 36.21

Petrotrade Inc -v- Texaco Ltd [2001] 4 All ER 853; [2002] 1 WLR 947
23 May 2000 CA Lord Woolf MR	Costs, Civil Procedure Rules	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where a defendant failed to beat a claimant's part 36 offer to settle, but judgment was given summarily the rule did not mean that the defendant was necessarily to be ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis, and to pay interest. Summary judgment did not involve a trial as required by the rule, and the early and relatively cheap settlement indicated the absence of need for such a rule. Nevertheless a court retained a discretion to make such an award.
	Civil Procedure Rules Part 36.21

Paragon Finance Ltd -v- King [2000] EWHC 9011 (Costs)
26 May 2000 SCCO	Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Mirror Group Newspapers Plc -v- Maxwell and Others
30 May 2000 ChD	Insolvency, Costs	Casemap 1 Cites
	The settling of remuneration paid to a court-appointed receiver was not an assessment of costs in the Chancery Division, and the court fee normally payable for such an assessment did not apply.

Pitchmastic Plc -v- Birse Construction Ltd
8 Jun 2000 QBD	Litigation Practice, Costs, Litigation Practice
	A party to litigation made an offer on the day before trial of settlement without prejudice save as to costs. At trial it made an open offer in similar terms which was rejected. After reading a draft unfavourable judgment, the party applied to be allowed to accept the offer, contending that such an offer was to remain open for 21 days in any event. The rules allowed a party to withdraw such an offer, and such situations must be decided by ordinary rules of offer and acceptance. The rules which apply to acceptance of a payment in do not necessarily apply to offers to settle. There is no rule requiring the permission of the court before allowing the withdrawal of an offer of settlement, and the test for whether such an offer remained capable of acceptance was the normal one of offer and acceptance.
	Civil Procedure Rules Part 36

Hornsby -v- Clarke Kenneth Leventhal (A Firm) [2000] EWHC 9012 (Costs)
16 Jun 2000 SCCO	Costs	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Richard John Cole -v- British Telecommunications Plc [2000] EWCA Civ 208
4 Jul 2000 CA	Costs	Casemap 1 Cites
	Link[s] omitted

Cole -v- British Telecommunications Plc [2000] EWHC 9014 (Costs)
4 Jul 2000 SCCO	Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Lands Tribunal, Ex Parte Jafton Properties Ltd [2000] EWHC Admin 384
31 Jul 2000 COL Langley J	Costs, Administrative, Land
	After a tribunal application, the applicant submitted his costs for taxation. After the hearing there was further correspondence about the decision, resulting in the applicant formally objecting to the taxation. He suggested that the correspondence after the award meant that taxation had not been concluded. It was held that he was out of time. The taxation award had all the elements necessary to make it final, and the President's refusal of extension of time was not irrational or unreasonable. The reasons were succinct, but correct.
	Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 (1996 No 1022) 52
	Link[s] omitted

Bunzl -v- Martin Bunzl International Ltd and Others
3 Aug 2000 ChD	European, Costs, International
	Security for costs had been ordered against a Swiss resident claimant. Although Switzerland is not in the EU or in the EEA and therefore rules against discrimination against nationals of member states did not apply, Switzerland was still a signatory to the Brussels and Lugano Conventions for enforcement of judgments. The discretion to require security for costs was slightly wider a regards a Swiss national, but the court should still general follow the rule in Fitzgerald. Orders for security for costs against nationals of other EU member states were discriminatory.

D'Abo -v- Paget and Others (No 2)
10 Aug 2000 ChD	Trusts, Wills and Probate, Costs
	Where a beneficiary having brought successful action against the trust fund, the rule in In re Buckton should still apply, but where the trustees could have brought the same action themselves, and had been ready and willing to do so, the beneficiary should not be awarded costs out of the trust fund. Under the new procedure, the court should take a more robust attitude to such claims. In effect the sole reason for the claimant's participation was to make a claim for costs if the trustees failed.

In Re Burfoot and Another (Bankrupts)
17 Aug 2000 ChD	Insolvency, Costs
	A general followed by a specific assignment of book debts anticipating a bankruptcy was effective against the trustee in bankruptcy. The specific assignments were not for an undervalue, and were intended to give effect to and perfect the general assignment. The transactions would have effective in the reverse order, and should not be avoided. The assignee having failed to say how much was at stake despite repeated requests could not rely upon an assertion that he was under no obligation to disclose the figure to recover his costs despite winning the argument.

Commissioners of Customs and Excise -v- Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd)
17 Aug 2000 CA	VAT, Costs	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	When an appeal is lodged in a VAT dispute, the discretion as to whether to require the appellant to lodge security for costs in the appeal, was a decision exclusively to be decided by the tribunal itself. A decision as to such security could not be challenged within enforcement proceedings.
	Finance Act 1994 16(3)(b)

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Another -v- Arum Marketing Ltd and Another
31 Aug 2000 CA	Company, Costs, Insolvency
	A company was wound up on public interest grounds. The costs wee ordered to be paid out of the company's assets. The Secretary appealed, and on appeal the costs were ordered to be paid by the company sole director and shareholder personally. The company was a swindle, and there was no reason why anyone other than the proprietor should lose out if it was not necessary.

Regina -v- South Yorkshire Police Authority Ex Parte Booth
10 Oct 2000 QBD	Police, Employment, Costs
	There is no power in law for a police authority to fund payment of legal expenses incurred by an officer of the rank of Superintendent or below when defending disciplinary proceedings. The statutory code was not displaced by the Duckinfield case. The Regulations and Act were clear in restricting such assistance to appeals against disciplinary findings, and to proceedings against senior officers.
	Police Act 1996 - Police (Conduct) Senior Officer Regulations 1999 (1999 No 731)

Macdougall and others -v- Boote Edgar Esterkin [2000] EWHC 9015 (Costs)
12 Oct 2000 SCCO	Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Practice Direction (Family Proceedings Costs)
24 Oct 2000 FD	Family, Costs
	New and future practice directions as to costs under the Civil Procedure Rules should be applied as appropriate to family proceedings and proceedings in the Family Division. The significant difference remained as to systems of funding, and it remains the case that enforceable conditional fee arrangements will not apply in family cases.

Matthews -v- Dorkin & Motor Insurers Bureau [2000] EWHC 9016 (Costs)
26 Oct 2000 SCCO	Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Hicks -v- Russell Jones & Walker Unreported, 27 October 2000
27 Oct 2000 Robert Walker LJ	Costs, Legal Aid	Casemap 1 Citers

Lewis -v- Commissioner of Inland Revenue and others [2000] EWCA Civ 274; [2001] 3 All ER 499
2 Nov 2000 CA Peter Gibson LJ	Insolvency, Company, Costs	Casemap 1 Citers
	The liquidator in a creditor's voluntary liquidation sought a direction that he could take his costs of pursuing former directors in actions for wrongful trading and preferences, out of realised funds. It was held that nothing in the rules or Act supported the contention that such costs would be expenses of the voluntary winding up. There was no automatic priority of such expenses over preferential creditors, and the liquidator must look to the court's discretion to recover any such costs."Rule 4.218 tells us both what are the expenses to be treated as the expenses of a winding up and what priority they have inter se."
	Insolvency Act 1986 - Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986 No 1925) 4.218(1) 4.220(1)
	Link[s] omitted

In Re A Debtor (2672 of 2000)
2 Nov 2000 ChD	Insolvency, Costs, Limitation
	More than six years after a costs order, the creditor began bankruptcy proceedings for unpaid costs. The debtor claimed the debt was time barred. The court found that the time started when the judgment became enforceable. As regards an order for costs, that happened only when the amount was fixed by taxation. The six year period had not expired with respect to that date.
	Limitation Act 1980 24

Cullen -v- Freed and others [2000] EWHC 9017 (Costs)
10 Nov 2000 SCCO	Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Winter -v- Winter November 10, 2000, unreported
10 Nov 2000 CA Brooke LJ	Family, Costs	Casemap 1 Citers
	Brooke LJ said: "before the Civil Procedure Rules came into effect . . if a claimant substantially succeeded he was likely to be awarded an order for costs even though he failed on certain issues. The new Rules provide a break from that tradition and enable a court to do greater justice if a party has caused court costs to be expended on an issue on which he ultimately fails.”

Ward and others -v- Sabherwal and others T/A Nath Bros. [2000] NIQB 54; [2000] NIEHC 54
13 Nov 2000 QBNI	Northern Ireland, Costs	Casemap 1 Cites
	Link[s] omitted

Amber -v- Stacey [2000] EWCA Civ 286; [2001] 2 All ER
15 Nov 2000 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown And Sir Anthony Evans	Costs	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant challenged an order that he should pay the plaintiff's costs, having made an offer in correspondence which was not accepted. Held: The claimant had exaggerated his claim, but the defendant's offer had been inadequate. The judge's order was fundamentally sound but an adjustment was made to require the claimant to pay half of the defendant's costs for a period after an offer had been made.
	Link[s] omitted

A -v- A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees) [2001] 1 FLR 377
15 Nov 2000 FD	Family, Costs	Casemap 1 Citers
	An application for maintenance pending suit could properly be made, to include payment on account of the legal costs of pursuing the action. Such legal expense were of a recurring, and income type nature. Maintenance was not confined to the day to day living expenses of an applicant. In the absence of a statutory definition, there was neither any case law definition which would preclude such expenses. Without such an order, the impecunious wife would be unable to progress in the single issue which dominated her life.
	Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 22

Medcalf -v- Mardell and Others
24 Nov 2000 CA	Legal Professions, Costs	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Counsel who wished to insert an allegation of fraudulent activity, or similar, into an application to amend a notice of appeal, must be sure not only that they have the clear and direct instructions of the clients to do this, but also that they found available material to justify the allegation in a format in which it could be produced to court in evidence. Where such material was unavailable because the client declined to waive confidence, counsel was at risk of a wasted costs order. Counsel are immune from defamation for such matters, and accordingly must behave responsibly.

Antonelli -v- Allen and Another
8 Dec 2000 ChD	Costs	Casemap 1 Citers
	When a court considered the apportionment of costs, where the claimant was successful but only in respect of some of the heads of claim, the court should consider the following: the reasonableness of the successful party in taking the points on which he was unsuccessful, the way in which he took the point and the manner in which he conducted the case, the reasonableness of taking the point in the circumstances, the extra time taken and costs caused, the inter-relationship of the various points, and the justice in all the circumstances, of depriving the successful party of his costs either entirely or in part.

Amoco (UK) Exploration Company and others -v- British American Offshore Ltd [2000] EWHC 212 (Comm)
12 Dec 2000 ComC Langley J	Costs	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

A Local Authority -v- A Mother and Child [2000] EWCA Civ 339
20 Dec 2000 CA The President. Lord Justice Laws, And Lady Justice Hale	Costs, Family, Legal Aid, Constitutional, Civil Procedure Rules	Casemap 1 Cites
	A solicitor claimed the sum of £59.00 for the cost of preparing his legal aid bill for assessment. The court had disallowed the costs of an in-house costs draftsman preparing the bill. The Costs Procedure Rules would generally allow something toward such a charge. The Court of Appeal had given leave to appeal although the amount at issue in this case was less than ten pounds. Held: The Act specified what sums could be paid from the legal aid fund. The rules made under the Act specified a sum of £71.75 toward the cost. Historically the preparation of a bill is seen as part of a solicitors overheads, and thus not claimable. This changed under the Civil Procedure Rules, and the solicitor argued that the Rules over-rode the Regulations so as to remove the limitation. However there is no new additional category by which changes under the rules have become vires. The Civil Procedure Rules go through no process of democratic control. The Rules have no power to override either legislation or subordinate legislation.
	Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No 339) 107 - Legal Aid Act 1988 6(1) - Civil Procedure Rules 2.16
	Link[s] omitted