- Court rejects use of CPR 3.1(7) to vary final orders (Clutterbuck and another v A)
- Original news:
- What are the practical implications of this decision?
- What was the case about?
- What were the salient facts of this case?
- Is CPR 3.1(7) available in respect of final court orders?
- What is the appropriate route to contest a costs order?
Dispute resolution analysis: William Skjøtt, barrister at Lamb Chambers considers the case Clutterbuck and another v A. In the, hopefully final, act of litigation in the infamous ‘Saudi Princess’ case, the court considered the application of CPR 3.1(7) where the losing claimants wished to set aside a costs order. The judge found that an application under CPR 3.1(7) where permission to appeal had already been refused was a ‘manifestly unsuitable and even improper route, akin in effect to an abuse of process’.
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