Discontinuance and deviating from the default costs position (Wolmer v Weller)

Table of contents

• Practical implications
• Court details
• Facts
• Judgment

Article summary

This case provides confirmation that if a claimant discontinues a claim, the onus is on him to show that there is good reason to deviate from the default CPR position that he is liable for the defendant’s costs incurred up to the time of discontinuance. The claimant will usually have to prove a change in circumstances to demonstrate good reason, although if the change is purely as a result of the claim itself the claimant cannot rely on it. In this case, the claimant tried unsuccessfully to argue that the court had been wrong to reach findings of fact about which the claimant had not been cross-examined, when considering whether he had shown good reason.