This Practice Note covers the presumption under CPR 38.6 that the claimant will pay the defendant costs upon discontinuing their claim unless this presumption is displaced. The guiding principles in respect of the costs of discontinuance are set out in the case of Teasdale v HSBC Bank (2010), approved by the Court of Appeal in Brookes v HSBC Bank (2011). This Practice Note sets out the application of these principles and the issues the court will consider when determining whether to depart from this general rule, eg the reasons for the discontinuance, whether the claimant would have succeeded at trial, whether there was any change in circumstances and the defendant’s conduct during the proceedings. The presumption in favour of the defendant on discontinuance When a claimant discontinues the proceedings, there is a presumption by reason of CPR 38.6 that the defendant should recover their costs.  The basis for this rule was explained in Far Out Productions v Unilever (2009) where the judge said: ‘In my view, the underlying rationale of the rule, or at least a substantial

This Practice Note provides guidance on the costs of discontinuing a claim, the general rule and when this will be displaced. It also covers the costs of discontinuing prior to service, discontinuing in respect of part of a claim and discontinuing against one or more but not all defendants. The procedure for bringing detailed assessment of costs is also considered along with the default position that a discontinuance costs order will be for costs to be assessed on the standard basis. What is discontinuance? Discontinuance is the means by which a claimant can bring all or part of the proceedings it has instigated to an end by serving a notice of discontinuance which must be in Form N279 unless otherwise permitted by the court (CPR 38.3(5)). Discontinuing all or part(s) of a claim has specific costs consequences which are set out in CPR 38. For information on the process of discontinuance, which is when a claimant brings all or part of the proceedings to an end, see Practice Note: Discontinuance of a claim. It

Family analysis: This straightforward judgment is a salutary warning to would-be maintenance pending suit (MPS) applicants in respect of proportionality. The applicant wife had spent nearly £9,000 in relation to her unsuccessful claim for what would have been (at best) four months of MPS payments at a rate of £500 per month. Deputy District Judge David Hodson was highly critical of the disproportionate and last-minute application, going as far as to say that it had ‘done only ill’ for the reputation of both the family court and family lawyers. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was the Court of Appeal’s decision on costs following its dismissal of the appeal against the order of the High Court sanctioning the restructuring plan (the Plan) in respect of Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd (the Plan Company). The court ordered that the Plan Company was entitled to 60% of its costs, against two appellants, Kington Sarl (Kington) and Thames Water Holdings Ltd (TWL), on a several basis. Written by Promit Chatterjee, barrister at Maitland.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The defendants were ordered to pay a proportion of the claimant’s costs from the time the issue of fundamental dishonesty was raised in the defendants’ counter schedule of loss. It was otherwise ordered that the claimant pay the defendants’ costs of the action, not to be enforced without leave of the court. The court’s decision on costs is a rare outcome where a claimant who is unsuccessful is nonetheless awarded their costs of the claim. Could the decision be viewed as a peculiarity arising from the application of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS)? Or is the decision a development in cases of failed allegations of fundamental dishonesty being an exception to the general rule that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party? Written by Jon Wong, barrister at Guildhall Chambers.

Can be one of the following: —a costs judge —a district judge —an authorised court officer SCCO Guide defines these as authorised court officers who assess most bills for sums not exceeding certain amounts specified from time to time. From their decisions, appeals lie as of right to the Costs Judges.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Authorised court officers have jurisdiction to conduct provisional assessments. There is no right to appeal from a provisional assessment, only from an oral hearing, if requested. That appeal, whether under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) 42.21 or otherwise, will be limited to decisions made at the hearing. If a party accepted the authorised court officer's provisional assessment on any points, it would be contrary to the overriding objective to accept that that party has the right to go back on his own decisions and restart the entire detailed assessment process through the appeal procedure. Written by Nicholas Lee, managing director and senior costs lawyer, at Paragon Costs Solutions.

This Practice Note provides an overview of the costs position when proceedings are discontinued against a defendant. It also provides information on the practical points which the parties should consider, taking into account their likely conflicting interests in respect if costs. It should be read as a starting point and in conjunction with Practice Notes: Costs of discontinuing a claim—the general rule and Costs of discontinuing a claim—displacing the presumption. Discontinuance—what does it mean? The term discontinuance is used when a claimant discontinues all or part of their claim against one or more defendants. This applies to cases where court proceedings have been issued. If proceedings have not been issued, the claimant does not need to discontinue their claim as there is no formal claim that has been pursued. For example, if the claimant sends a letter before action to a defendant but subsequently decides not to pursue the claim any further, this will not amount to discontinuance. The relevant rules on discontinuance are found under CPR 38. A claimant can discontinue

Family analysis: In The Mother v the Father, the mother was granted permission to appeal an earlier failed application to re-open a fact-finding determination made in private law children proceedings in which the judge had made findings of parental alienation against the mother. While an earlier application for permission to appeal the original fact-finding judgment had been dismissed on the basis that it was totally without merit, the court granted permission to appeal on the sole basis that the need for the court to look at the practice of instructing unregulated experts in such cases provided a compelling reason, under Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, r 30.3(7), for an appeal to be heard. The appeal was dismissed but criticism was made of the approach taken by the Association of Clinical Psychologists (the ACP), which had been given permission to intervene in the appeal proceedings. The father, who succeeded in opposing the appeal and who was the recipient of a costs order in his favour, brought the present application for an order for his costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellant mother and, if not, then, either in whole or in part, by the ACP. The expert, Ms Gill, whose instruction was at the centre of the appeal, appeared as an intervenor in the appeal and also applied for an order for costs against the appellant mother and/or the ACP. The appeal was heard by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. Written by Poonam Bhari, barrister at 3PB Chambers.

Key documents This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with the following legislation and Practice Direction: • Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (POA 1985) • Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 Regulations), SI 1986/1335 • Practice Direction (Costs in Criminal Proceedings) 2015 [2015] EWCA Crim 1568 (as amended), and • Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, Pt 45 Who can obtain costs in a private prosecution? Private prosecutor’s costs from defendants The prosecution’s costs can be ordered against the defendant in a private prosecution in the same circumstances as in a public prosecution, namely where: • the defendant has been convicted of an offence by the magistrates’ court • an appeal against conviction has been dismissed by the Crown Court • the defendant has been convicted of an offence by the Crown Court • an application to appeal against conviction has been refused by the Court of Appeal, or • an appeal against conviction has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal An

This Practice Note considers the particular issues arising out of multi-party costs orders. It considers what a multi-party costs order is and when it might arise in the context of costs recovery. This Practice Note covers the severability of costs liabilities, wording of costs orders, common costs orders in proceedings involving multiple parties, contribution where one party has made payment in respect of a joint or several costs order, Bullock and Sanderson orders and costs assessments in multi-party proceedings including how costs are apportioned or divided between the paying parties. What is a multi-party costs order? A multi-party costs order is an order in a claim where there is more than one claimant and/or more than one defendant. It may include, therefore: • a claim in which there are Part 20 proceedings (see Practice Note: Counterclaims and additional claims under CPR 20—initial considerations and permission) • a claim where the claimant alleges that two or more defendants are liable to him or her, either jointly or severally (see Practice Notes: Bringing a civil claim against

A party can make an application to the court for a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) which is a court order compelling a third party to disclose documents or information. Its name comes from the case of Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners. A NPO is typically granted when a legal wrong has been committed (or is reasonably suspected) and a third party, who has become involved in the wrongdoing (even if innocently), is in a position to provide information or documentation which is necessary to identify or pursue the wrongdoer. An application for a NPO is made under CPR 31.18 and although CPR 46.1 (pre-commencement disclosure and orders for disclosure against a person who is not a party) does not directly apply to these applications, the courts have drawn comparisons between the two. For further information on NPOs generally along with making an application for a NPO, see Practice Notes: Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) and Norwich Pharmacal orders—making an application. Norwich Pharmacal applications—general rule as to costs In Norwich Pharmacal applications, the general