Despite their penal nature, disqualification proceedings are civil proceedings, and the general principles relating to costs that apply to other civil proceedings also apply to disqualification proceedings. The Court of Appeal decision in Re Pamstock makes it clear that no special costs rules apply in disqualification proceedings simply by reason of their quasi-penal nature. The general principles Discretion as to costs The general rule for costs under CPR 44.2 that the costs of any civil proceedings are at the discretion of the court also applies to disqualification proceedings. In matters that go to trial, if the case lasts less than one day, then it is usual for the costs to be summarily assessed following the hearing (and a schedule of costs should be prepared in advance for this purpose in line with the CPR). If the trial lasts more than one day, a detailed assessment is the usual order. CPR 44.2 sets out the principle that 'costs follow the event'. However, this is just the starting point for any costs award, and any judge

This Practice Note provides guidance on the rules regarding costs in family proceedings, the application of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, and factors taken into account by the court in determining costs including conduct and offers of settlement. It also considers costs on divorce or dissolution (both prior to and after the coming into force of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) on 6 April 2022), the types of costs orders that may be made by the court, costs in relation to litigants in person and costs orders against non-parties. General principles The relevant costs provisions are set out in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 28, together with FPR 2010, PD 28A. Certain parts of the costs provisions of the CPR also apply to family proceedings with modifications, see: Application of the CPR. The general principles are: • subject to other specific provisions, the court has discretion as to costs, ie it may make such order as to costs as it thinks just

This Practice Note provides a summary of the rules in relation to costs in proceedings for a financial remedy within divorce or civil partnership proceedings that are subject to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), or in financial proceedings that are subject to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR). General provisions The court may make, at any time, such order as to costs as it thinks just. By virtue of FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 28.2(1), CPR 44 (except CPR 44.2(2)–44.2(3), CPR 44.10(2)–44.10(3)), plus CPR 45.8, 46 and 47 and their associated practice directions apply to costs in family proceedings with some modifications. The application of the costs rules will vary, dependent on whether the proceedings relate to: • divorce and civil partnership dissolution, see Practice Note: Costs in family proceedings, in particular Divorce and civil partnership dissolution—post-DDSA 2020 and Divorce and civil partnership dissolution—pre-DDSA 2020 • financial remedy proceedings, as defined by FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 28.3(4)(b), ie: ◦ financial order proceedings, save for an order for: ‣ maintenance pending suit/outcome of proceedings ‣ interim

This Practice Note considers the role of costs in international arbitration proceedings. Further guidance on this topic can be found in Practice Notes: AA 1996—costs, Interest on costs and damages in arbitration, Costs and fees of key arbitral institutions and the ‘Related documents’ pod. To compare the answers to questions relating to arbitration costs (and funding) in jurisdictions around the world, please see our International Comparator Tool. Relevance of costs in international arbitration This examination of costs is directed primarily to two issues—helping arbitrants control costs and to recover them from the opponent if successful. Uncontrolled costs of disputes can quickly make it uneconomical to pursue them and lead disputants to regret commencing proceedings. Understanding the different types of costs can help introduce a measure of control, and can help ensure that the costs incurred are recovered from the opponent. Types of costs in international arbitration Institutional rules generally recognise two types of costs in international arbitration: • costs of the arbitration, meaning the cost of providing the arbitration to

This Practice Note provides guidance on the costs principles and case law that specifically apply to public law children proceedings, including care proceedings and adoption. It covers the courts’ approach to costs orders against parties, including local authorities, as well as fact-finding hearings and costs where there is an intervener. It also provides guidance on the approach to costs and the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) statutory charge on a claim for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). General principles In children proceedings, the general rule that costs will follow the event does not apply, in accordance with the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 28.2(1), which disapplies CPR 44.2(2). However, CPR 44.2(4) and CPR 44.2(5) do apply to children proceedings, both at first instance and on appeal, ie that in deciding what order, if any, to make as to costs the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including: • whether a party has succeeded on part of its case even if they have not been wholly successful, and

This Practice Note sets out how an application for costs should be made, the grounds for costs orders and what costs may be ordered, including an award of partial costs, in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). It also covers wasted costs against a party’s representative, costs in favour of litigants in person, and pro bono costs. As in the employment tribunal (see Practice Note: Costs in the employment tribunal—When a costs order or a preparation time order must or may be made), the EAT has the power to award costs in certain limited circumstances. The EAT rules define 'costs' to include fees, charges, disbursements and expenses incurred by or on behalf of a party, including the reimbursement allowed to a litigant in person (see Costs of litigants in person below). The Practice Direction describes 'costs' to include legal costs, expenses, and payment in respect of time spent in preparing a case to bring it before the employment tribunal. Application for costs The EAT rules state that either party is entitled to apply for costs at any time during

This Practice Note has been written by Anne Redston, Barrister. It is her personal view; she is not authorised to speak for the Tribunals Service or the judiciary. This Practice Note outlines: • the normal position that each party pays its own costs in the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (FTT) as well as the exceptions to that rule, and • the procedure for recovering costs at the FTT For a worked example of an FTT costs application, see: Case study—completing an FTT costs application. This Practice Note, and the other Practice Notes on appealing to the FTT and the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) (UT), are only a summary; they do not cover all situations. You may need to take further advice in relation to your client’s appeal position. In particular, none of these Practice Notes deals with appeals or reviews of decisions made by Revenue Scotland in relation to any of the Scottish devolved taxes for which the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Tax Chamber) has jurisdiction. For more information, see Practice

This Practice Note outlines the types of orders that can be made relating to costs in the employment tribunal, including orders relating to representation, expenses and allowances paid to an assessor or expert. It also considers preparation time orders, wasted costs orders and pro bono costs orders. It explains the circumstances in which an order must or may be made, the effect of a previous deposit order, the amount that can be ordered and the relevance of a party’s ability to pay. The Practice Note also considers costs warnings by the employment tribunal and between the parties, and the Presidential Guidance, and sets out the time limit for compliance with a costs order. Types of order relating to costs Employment tribunals have the power to make the following types of order relating to costs: col style="width: 33%;"> Type of costs order Description Further details below Costs orders relating to representation An order that a party make a payment to another party in respect of the costs (fees, charges, disbursements or expenses) that other party has incurred while represented

Restructuring & Insolvency Analysis: Mr Aliotta’s bankruptcy did not bar the court from determining pre-existing claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) where the relief was directed against third-party recipients rather than the bankrupt or his property, although bankruptcy deprived him of standing on costs and prevented him from representing a company. On costs, the claimants were treated as overall successful despite partial failure, because they had defeated the defendants’ substantive case and established fraudulent conduct involving fabricated evidence. Full indemnity costs were therefore justified against the relevant defendants. The decision underlines both the limited reach of the IA 1986, s 285 stay in third party transaction claims and the weight misconduct may carry in the costs discretion, even where a claimant succeeds only in part. Produced in partnership with Ololade Saromi of Five Paper.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimants in a double derivative claim have been unsuccessful in an application for a pre-emptive indemnity from the companies on whose behalf they had been granted permission to bring the claims. The defendants argued that the claimants could have brought all the claims made by way of the derivative action within the unfair prejudice petition which they were simultaneously pursing. As a result, any costs which the claimants would incur, and the risk of an adverse costs order if they lose, would all be costs or a risk which they would be incurring for their own direct benefit. The judge agreed, concluding at para [117] that there was ‘a complete overlap, or at least almost complete overlap, between the allegations in the derivative claim and in the petition’. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Archived: This Practice Note is based on rules in force until 5 October 2011. It is therefore for historical purposes only. Why is the position pre 6 October 2011 relevant in my case? For practitioners who entered into retainers, funding arrangements etc with clients on or after 6 October 2011 the information required to be given to your client in such circumstances is governed (at least in part) by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct which came into force on 6 October 2011 (the 2011 Code). The 2011 Code is not retrospective. Therefore, if you have entered into a retainer, fee arrangement etc prior to 6 October 2011 the old SRA Code which came into force on 1 July 2007 (the 2007 Code) and the Solicitors Information and Client Code 1999 (the 1999 Code) may be relevant if there is a challenge as to what information you were required to provide to your client under each code as it applied in the relevant period. This

This Practice Note looks at costs insurance (sometimes known as legal expense insurance (LEI)), which is the means by which an insured person is protected against the risks of an adverse costs award in litigation. The two main types are before the event insurance (BTE insurance) and after the event insurance (ATE insurance). This Practice Note should be read in association with Practice Note: Recovery of costs insurance premiums. Insurance is a complex area and one which is subject to regulatory requirements. It is important to understand these requirements as a failure to comply would allow the court to find that the policy is unenforceable and this in turn may limit costs recovery. See further: Insurance contracts—overview and Regulated activities—overview. LEI policies are regulated by the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, SI 1990/1159. LEI insurance will require the payment of a premium for the insurance cover and the cover will be subject to an excess which will not be covered by the insurance, and so will be payable by the client. The costs of premiums range