Principles of costs recovery

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

General principles of costs recovery

Costs recovery is governed by several principles starting with the application of the general rule. For an introduction to some key resources in this area, see Practice Notes: Costs glossary and Costs precedents.

Cost orders—the general rule and the court's discretion

The general rule on costs recovery is that the unsuccessful party will pay the successful party’s costs (CPR 44.2(2)(a)). However, the court has the discretion to make a different order (CPR 44.2(2)(b)). It can be seen from the authorities that the general rule might not apply for example where there has been a failure to recover the amount claimed, where there are sanctions or where the claim is struck out for being disproportionate. The general rule will also not apply in the specific circumstances set out in CPR 44.2(3). In addition, the court will be prepared to depart from the general rule when it is not in fact clear who is the winning party. For guidance, see Practice Notes: Costs orders—the general rule and Costs orders—the court's discretion.

Costs—recovery of costs under contractual

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

The construction of jurisdiction clauses in the context of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and the mechanisms of service(Campeau v Gottex Real Asset Fund 1 (OE) Waste S.À.R.L)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considers a jurisdictional clause in the context of service under CPR 6.33(2B)(b), which allows service out of the jurisdiction where the defendant is party to a jurisdiction clause. There is no corresponding requirement for the claimant to be a party to that jurisdiction clause. The starting point is that jurisdiction clauses are not generally intended to concern disputes with third parties. However, that is no more than a starting point and one which can be departed from in appropriate cases. This was one such appropriate case whereby the circumstances and construction of the clause led to the finding that it did include the third party claimant’s (Mr Campeau) claim. While not strictly necessary given the judge’s findings in relation to the construction of the clause, Mr Justice Butcher considered that, where a jurisdictional clause was wide enough to encompass disputes from third parties, then it will likely also amount to a ‘relevant term’ for the purposes of section 1(4) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999). That meant that the third party, in seeking to enforce their rights under the SPA, was statutorily obliged to do so in England and so could rely upon CPR 6.33 (2B) (b) in that respect also. Written by Georgia Whiting, legal counsel (contentious construction) at Capita.

Libel, truth and public interest (Clarke v Guardian)

TMT analysis: The court dismissed the actor and director Noel Clarke’s claim in libel against the publisher of the Guardian newspaper. The case concerned eight articles published by the Guardian. The first article was titled ‘“Sexual predator”: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women’, which the Guardian admitted had caused or was likely to cause serious harm to Mr Clarke’s reputation under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). The Guardian denied that serious harm was caused by the remaining seven articles. The court determined the issue of serious harm in respect of the other seven articles, and the Guardian’s defences of i) truth under DA 2013, s 2, and ii) publication on matter of public interest under DA 2013, s 4. The Guardian succeeded on all the disputed issues: the remaining articles did not cause Mr Clarke serious reputational harm, and the articles were substantially true and published on a matter of public interest. Written by Hector Penny, barrister at 5RB.

The Hague Judgments Convention 2019—impact on personal injury claims

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Hague Judgments Convention 2019) came into force in the UK on 1 July 2025. In this article, Sarah Prager KC examines the significance of this development—and the limitations of the Convention, concluding that further reform is urgently needed. Written by Sarah Prager KC, barrister at Deka Chambers.

MoJ announces Lord Chancellor’s approval of Catherine Brown as interim LSB chair

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced that the Lord Chancellor has approved the appointment of Catherine Brown as interim chair of the Legal Services Board (LSB) from 1 January to 31 March 2026. Brown, who has served as an LSB Board member since 2019 will continue in the role pending the conclusion of recruitment for a permanent Chair. The appointment, made under the Legal Services Act 2007, follows consultation with the Lady Chief Justice and the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretion

Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretionThis Practice Note considers security for costs under CPR 25. It explains what an order for security for costs is, who it may be sought against as well as the circumstances in which such an order is generally not available. It

Summary assessment—principles

Summary assessment—principlesThis Practice Note explains what a summary assessment of costs is and sets out the key principles to understanding summary assessment, ie when summary assessment can be sought, the circumstances in which summary assessment will not take place and which members of the

Fixed costs—fast track trial costs (position prior to 1 October 2023)

Fixed costs—fast track trial costs (position prior to 1 October 2023)Note, the extension of the fixed costs regime came into force on 1 October 2023. For all civil cases, other than personal injury and disease, the extended fixed costs regime applies (unless the case is specifically excluded) where

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a
Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretion

Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretion

Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretionThis Practice Note considers security for costs under CPR 25. It explains what an order for security for costs is, who it may be sought against as well as the circumstances in which such an order is generally not available. It

Summary assessment—principles

Summary assessment—principles

Summary assessment—principlesThis Practice Note explains what a summary assessment of costs is and sets out the key principles to understanding summary assessment, ie when summary assessment can be sought, the circumstances in which summary assessment will not take place and which members of the

Fixed costs—fast track trial costs (position prior to 1 October 2023)

Fixed costs—fast track trial costs (position prior to 1 October 2023)

Fixed costs—fast track trial costs (position prior to 1 October 2023)Note, the extension of the fixed costs regime came into force on 1 October 2023. For all civil cases, other than personal injury and disease, the extended fixed costs regime applies (unless the case is specifically excluded) where

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a