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, Costs orders—the court's discretion and Costs orders—departing from the general rule and circumstances

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

ACSO reports personal injury claims hit record lows following whiplash reforms

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has reported that the government’s Compensation Recovery Unit recorded a further fall in personal injury claims in 2025, with total registrations reaching a record low, based on data obtained through a Freedom of Information request. A total of 413,323 claims were registered, a 12% decrease from 2024 and a fall of more than half compared with 2018. The decline was driven mainly by motor injury claims, which fell by 14% year on year to 282,428 and reached their lowest quarterly level on record in the final quarter of 2025. Claims in other categories, including employer and public liability, also remained well below previous highs. ACSO said the sustained reduction reflects increased barriers to bringing claims, particularly following the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash reforms, and stated that the figures undermine claims of a widespread compensation culture, as higher small claims limits and fixed costs regimes have reduced access to legal representation despite road traffic levels returning close to pre-pandemic norms.

BHP to pay £43m over Mariana Dam case as it seeks appeal

Law360, London: BHP will have to pay £43m of costs on account after it was found liable for the collapse of a Brazilian dam, a London court ruled on 19 January 2026 as it rejected BHP's request to appeal against the decision.

Missing records and an uncommunicated afterthought speak louder than claims of usual practice (Shaheen v Daish)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The High Court determined preliminary issues regarding clinical negligence. The court held that the defendant GP failed to inform the deceased of a requested chest x-ray and that he would have attended for the x-ray had he been properly informed. Additionally, the court found the deceased was not contributorily negligent in failing to attend a follow-up appointment. Practitioners should note the critical importance of contemporaneous record-keeping; the absence of the x-ray request in the consultation notes was a pivotal factor in the court’s decision. The case reinforces that contributory negligence remains difficult to establish in clinical settings. It is unlikely to succeed unless a defendant demonstrates the patient fully understood the clinical significance of failing to follow advice or attend follow-up appointments. This is particularly relevant when investigations are ordered as an 'afterthought' after a patient has left, without full explanation to the patient. Written by Jennifer Dickinson, barrister at Cobden House Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News