- Applications for wasted costs orders—does the court have jurisdiction to require attendance of a legal representative? (Hunt v Annolight)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that the provisions in CPR 46.8, relating to wasted costs orders, did not constitute a self-contained code on dealing with applications for wasted costs. While not provided for in the rule, it was held that the court has jurisdiction under CPR 32.7 to require attendance at a hearing of the person against whom the wasted costs order is sought. Written by Claire Winn, costs lawyer at Paragon Costs Solutions.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial