- Appropriate costs order following unsuccessful committal application for contempt (Barclay v Tuck (calling himself Lord De Chanson))
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
Dispute Resolution analysis: Spencer J considered the appropriate costs order to make where a committal application failed. Applications for costs on an indemnity basis were refused as nothing took the case out of the ‘norm’. Terence Wong, barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers in London (who acted for the successful defendant) comments on what lessons can be learned from Barclay v Tuck and considers the implications for dispute resolution practitioners.
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