Cost orders

There is a lot of information to assimilate when considering the approach the courts will take when making a costs order. In this topic guidance is provided on the general rules which apply when considering the issue of costs and specific types of costs orders.

The power to make a costs order derives from section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981). The power is broad but is made expressly ‘subject to … rules of court’.

There are several CPR provisions governing the exercise of the court’s discretion on costs, in particular:

  1. CPR 44—the court’s general discretion as to costs

  2. CPR 45—fixed costs

  3. CPR 46—costs in special cases

  4. CPR 36—costs in respect of Part 36 offers

As well as ordering the payment of costs, the court can manage the costs incurred by the parties during proceedings by making a costs management order (CMO). A CMO can be made at any time but is generally made at the costs management conference when considering the parties’ costs budgets. For information on CMOs, see: Costs budgeting and costs management—overview.

Court's

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents