- Court of Appeal sets out guidance for non-party cost orders (Deutsche Bank v Sebastian Holdings)
- Practical implications
- Is an application for an NPCO a summary procedure?
- What was impact of the judge's criticisms of Mr Vik in the main judgment?
- What was the effect of failing to warn Mr Vik that costs may be sought from him as a non-party?
- What was the effect of failing to join Mr Vik as a party to the main proceedings?
- Witness immunity
- Had Mr Vik in fact funded the litigation?
- Did the lack of a security for costs application make an NPCO unjust?
- Did the costs order contravene art 6?
- Should the quantum of costs ordered be reduced?
- Summary of the guidance provided in Symphony Group
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has set out that the only immutable principle applicable to a court when determining whether to make a non-party costs order (NPCO) is that the discretion must be exercised justly. Many practitioners place reliance of the guidelines of a previous Court of Appeal decision in Symphony Group v Hodgson. However, the Court of Appeal in this case emphasised that those guidelines were set out at a time when such applications were rare. While the guidelines may now act as factors for consideration by the court they are not rules which must be followed. This judgment highlights that a critical factor to consider will be the nature and degree of the connection that a non-party has to the proceedings.
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