- No stay of execution of a costs order where an application to reopen a Court of Appeal judgment is being made (Horler v Rubin and others)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The initial question in this case was whether the question of liability for costs should be left until the resolution of the claimant’s application to the Court of Appeal. The application, if successful, could result in the reversal of the any costs order. The claimant was unsuccessful on this point, and the defendants were awarded their costs to be assessed on the standard basis as well as a payment on account of £120,000. This decision led to the claimant further submitting that the order should include a provision that they have liberty to apply to reverse the above order. It was decided that there was no requirement for this to be included and this did not affect the claimant’s right to apply to reverse the decision. Finally, the claimant requested a stay of execution of any costs order on the grounds that he was impecunious. While Mr Knox QC had no reason to disbelieve the claimant in this regard, he had made no application and provided no evidence in that regard, as required by CPR 83.7(6). The claimant was granted an additional four days to make the payment, to allow him time to make the application. Written by Lucy Baldwin, Senior Costs Lawyer at Paragon Costs 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