Principles of costs recovery

General principles of costs recovery

Costs recovery is governed by several principles starting with the application of the general rule. For an introduction to some key resources in this area, see Practice Notes: Costs glossary and Costs precedents.

Cost orders—the general rule and the court's discretion

The general rule on costs recovery is that the unsuccessful party will pay the successful party’s costs (CPR 44.2(2)(a)). However, the court has the discretion to make a different order (CPR 44.2(2)(b)). It can be seen from the authorities that the general rule might not apply for example where there has been a failure to recover the amount claimed, where there are sanctions or where the claim is struck out for being disproportionate. The general rule will also not apply in the specific circumstances set out in CPR 44.2(3). In addition, the court will be prepared to depart from the general rule when it is not in fact clear who is the winning party. For guidance, see Practice Notes: Costs orders—the general rule and Costs orders—the court's discretion.

Costs—recovery of costs under contractual

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