Costs on discontinuance

The discontinuance of a claim can have costs implications. Therefore, when considering whether to discontinue proceedings or if involved in proceedings in which the claimant is discontinuing their claim, it is essential to understand the costs implications.

When discontinuing a claim specific costs consequences are set out in CPR 38.6. Note that this rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims court.

For guidance on the process of discontinuing a claim, see Practice Note: Discontinuance of a claim.

General presumption—claimant pays the defendant’s costs

There is a general presumption that the claimant will be liable for the defendant's costs that were incurred up to the date when the notice of discontinuance is served. The rationale for this approach is that discontinuance will generally occur where there is an admission or an acceptance by the claimant that the proceedings should not have been commenced. Where this presumption applies, there is a right to costs and a costs order will be deemed to be made on the standard

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