This Practice Note looks at the ability to recover costs when a court order makes no provision as to costs. While the parties will not be entitled to any costs in relation that particular order, it is important to be aware that in certain circumstances a costs order may be deemed to have been made. In such cases, costs will be recoverable. The general rule—no costs recovery The general rule is that where a court order does not make any provision as to costs the parties are not entitled to recover their costs associated with that particular order (CPR 44.10(1)). Further, in such cases, a party is also unable to seek an order under section 194(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) (payments in respect of pro bono representation). See the discussion in Kapoor v Johal (2024) confirming the clarity and meaning of CPR 44.10(1)(a)(i) to this effect and as supported by the (pre CPR 44.10) decision in Griffiths v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2003). Given that

Construction analysis: It is notoriously difficult to resist enforcement of adjudicators’ awards, but this case gives some support to those seeking to do so and makes clear the limits on the ability of claimants, perhaps wishing to hamper a stay application, to withhold information. The court refused to award the successful claimant its costs of the enforcement claim, because of its failure to disclose, pre-action, evidence which would have allayed the defendant’s concerns about its solvency. Written by James Malam, barrister at Exchange Chambers.

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published. Developments in costs practice and procedure 2016—what do you need to know? This note considers developments that occurred in 2016 in the following areas: • Costs precedents—new and updates • Fixed costs reform • Costs funding—ATE insurance and CFA success fees • Costs assessment—bill of costs • Solicitor and client costs Costs precedents—new and updates New costs precedent—Precedent R Precedent R is a budget discussion report. It is for use in proceedings in which the claim was commenced on or after 6 April 2016 and in which costs budgets are required. Precedent R was introduced to ensure that parties seek to agree the other side's costs budget. Where agreement cannot be reached the precedent provided for the areas of disagreements to be identified and a summary of the reasons for disagreement provided. For

This Practice Note provides a list of costs precedents with links through to the precedents in PDF or Word format. It covers costs budgets (precedent H) and related documents (precedents Q, R and T), delivery of a bill (precedent K), detailed assessment dealing with bill of costs and points of dispute (precedents A, B, C, D, E, F and G) and detailed assessment both paper and

Proportionality rules CPR 4.3(2) states: • (2) Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will: ◦ (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred, and ◦ (b) resolve any doubt, which it may have as to

This Practice Note lists a number of decisions in which the court has considered issues of proportionality since 2012. For information on the court’s approach to proportionality, see Practice Note: Costs and proportionality. Cases from 2020 Case, citation and date of judgment Issues Comment The Imaging Centre Mobile Ltd v Morr & Co LLP [2025] EWHC 1039 (SCCO) Reasonableness and proportionality of items charged The judge considered West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220 as an authority in respect of the approach to be taken when assessing reasonableness and proportionality. It was noted, in this case, that it was very difficult to consider proportionality on an individual basis as a summary assessment was being undertaken. As a result, the judge took the approach of allowing what they considered to be the costs which were reasonable before stepping back and deciding whether the figure reached bore a reasonable relationship to the factors set out in CPR 44.3(5). Cohen v Co-Operative Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 565 (Ch) Reasonableness of costs claimed: amount of hours

The reason for special costs protection measures in environmental law The special costs protection measures in environmental matters derive from international environmental law including, for example Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992. The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus, Denmark on 25 June 1998 (the Aarhus Convention) explains in Article 1 that the objective of the Convention is to: “… contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.” Thus the right to access to justice in environmental matters is based upon the fundamental need to protect the environment for present and future generations. The UK ratified the Aarhus Convention in 2005 and while the courts considered

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this case, the Court of Appeal gave guidance on what constituted a ‘judgment’ for the purpose of CPR 36.17(1). Further, the court held that split-liability Part 36 offers can engage the costs recoverability provisions set out in CPR 36.17(4), thereby effectively overruling the arguments which culminated in the decision in Mundy v TUI UK Ltd. However, this was not the end of the matter. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that on the facts of this case, the outcome was less advantageous than the proposals contained in the claimant’s Part 36 offer. Further, the court held that there was no reason to depart from the fixed costs regime, and that it would not be ‘unjust’ to confine the claimant’s solicitors to fixed costs recoverability. Now that the uncertainty which followed Mundy has been clarified by the court, this could mark a resurgence in parties making split-liability Part 36 offers. Written by Charlotte Payne, barrister at 7KBW.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This is the latest High Court decision to grapple with the new rules concerning trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts. In this instance, the defendant served a witness statement which failed to comply with the requirements of CPR PD 57AC. While there was no apparent good reason for the failures, the court reasoned that the appropriate sanction was to require a compliant statement to be served as well as requiring the defendant to pay costs. Written by Johnny Shearman, head of Knowledge & Legal Services at Signature Litigation LLP.

We have reached a stage in your matter where it is appropriate for me to update you on costs. How costs are calculated It would probably be helpful for me to remind you that there are three main elements to the legal costs of any matter: • our charges • expenses we must pay out of your behalf—sometimes called disbursements • costs that you may have to pay another party Each of these elements is explained below. Our charges Fixed price wording [We previously agreed to charge a fixed price of £[insert price excluding VAT] for [state what work the fixed price relates to]. At this stage, we do not expect to do any work outside the terms of this fixed price. We will notify you if the position changes; if it does, we will agree with you how the additional work will be charged. OR We previously agreed to charge a fixed price of £[insert price excluding VAT] for [state what work the fixed price related to] and we agreed to notify you if we expected to do any work outside the terms

[ON YOUR LETTERHEAD] [Name and address of other party, or other party’s solicitor] Dear [insert contact name] [Insert subject of letter, eg names of parties to the claim, or Your client: [name]]: Employment tribunal claim number: [insert number] [ [We refer to our previous correspondence in relation to these proceedings, OR We refer to the ET3 response form which our client has submitted to the employment tribunal in response to your [client’s ]claim,] in which we have [set out brief details of the party’s position, eg set out that the employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear your unfair dismissal claim because you do not have the required period of continuous employment with [enter name]]] We write to put you on notice that, if [you continue OR your client continues] to pursue [the OR their] [claim[s] for OR ground[s]

Dispute Resolution analysis: Enormous damages claims, a single professional client and rich defendants have made collective proceeding actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) a honeypot for entrepreneurial lawyers. Costs are a massively important aspect to these claims. Litigation funding is regularly called on to keep the case going for claimants while for defendants the unique regime in the CAT means a fight over costs can stop ‘bet the company’ claims dead in their tracks. Indeed the CAT itself has a duty to ensure that the involvement of a funder does not override the best interests of the class and it often investigates the funding relationship. In this analysis, Imran Benson, barrister at Hailsham Chambers, considers the costs and funding issues which arise in this mega—and ever more popular, form of litigation.