Court rejects use of CPR 3.1(7) to vary final orders (Clutterbuck and another v A)

Table of contents

• 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?

Article summary

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’.