- Defendant awarded indemnity costs ordered, there was no obligation to seek summary disposal of the claimants’ unarguable case (Bailey v GlaxoSmithKline)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- 1) Should the court depart from the usual position that the loser pays the winner’s costs?
- 2) Should GSK’s costs be assessed on the indemnity basis?
- 3) Should there be a payment on account of costs?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimants in a long-running group claim advanced their case on narrow grounds which, due to High Court decisions in an unrelated case, became unarguable. Notwithstanding that, they persisted with the claim. Eventually the claimants submitted to judgment being entered against them but sought to resist GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) application for a costs order on the basis that GSK should have made an application for summary disposal of the claim. The court rejected this argument, holding that it is the responsibility of the claimant to run its own case and there was no obligation on the defendant to seek summary disposal. The court ordered the claimants to pay GSK’s costs on the indemnity basis. Written by Alex Bagnall, technical manager at Total Legal 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