Dispute Resolution analysis: The Admiralty Court held that solicitors who wrongly represented that they were instructed by insurers were in breach of warranty of authority, causing the defendants to incur substantial and unnecessary litigation costs. The court found that the misrepresentation materially influenced the defendants’ decision to litigate in England and provide security. Applying established principles on breach of warranty and wasted costs, the court ordered the solicitors to pay the majority of the defendants’ costs. The decision highlights the strictness of the warranty of authority and the importance of verifying instructions, particularly where representations as to insurer backing affect litigation strategy.

Orders for costs against legal representatives Under section 19A(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (POA 1985), the Court of Appeal, Crown Court or magistrates' court can order a legal or other representative to pay the wasted costs incurred by them. There is no power for the High Court to impose such a costs order. A costs order may also be made against a solicitor in the Crown Court under the inherent jurisdiction of the Crown Court. This is a separate power to that set out in POA 1985, s 19 and the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, SI 1986/1335, reg 3. For information on the recovery of costs under these provisions, see Practice Note: Applying for costs from a prosecutor following an unsuccessful criminal prosecution. POA 1985, s 19A contains key definitions: • a 'legal or other representative’ is a person exercising a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation on behalf of any party to the proceedings • ‘wasted costs’ are the costs incurred by a party:

SCCO Guide defines this as order against a legal representative which disallows, or, as the case may be, orders the legal representative to meet, the whole or any part of costs found to have been incurred as a result of improper, unreasonable or negligent acts or omissions on the part of the legal representative or any consequential costs.

An order made against a party's lawyers where the court believes that those costs have been incurred as a result of that lawyer's improper, unreasonable or negligent conduct.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This case involved a negligent failure by solicitors to prepare and translate a client’s witness statement and pleadings. The claim was struck out and the trial judge made a wasted costs order of £3,000 for these failures, in addition to the costs of the other parties for the wasted costs application of £13,500. To compound matters, the costs of the wasted costs application were assessed on the indemnity basis due to the way in which the application had been defended. In the judge’s words, it was an attempt to ‘defend the indefensible’. In dismissing the solicitors’ appeal, the High Court emphasised that an appeal court would be very slow to interfere where the court has wide discretion over wasted costs orders and stated that there was a public interest in making such orders where there was negligence or misconduct as it encourages compliance and relieves the burden on clients of bringing negligence claims. The judgment also provides helpful guidance on proportionality and the evidence required to defend wasted costs applications. Written by James Tunley, barrister at Lamb Chambers.

This Practice Note considers what a wasted costs order is and the power of the court to make such an order. It also considers the relevant test and principles the court will apply. For information on making an application for a wasted costs order and the practical points to consider, see Practice Note: Wasted costs orders—application. What is a wasted costs order? A wasted costs order is defined in CPR PD 46, para 5.1 as an order: • that a legal representative pay a sum in respect of the costs of a party; such sum to be specified or to be assessed, or • for costs relating to a specified sum or items of work that are disallowed Wasted costs orders are not available to satisfy a disgruntled party who has been unable to obtain an effective costs order, ie they cannot be used as a back door to recover costs not otherwise recoverable. This was clearly set out by the Court of Appeal in Ridehalgh v Horsefield (1994). Power of the court to make an

This Practice Note provides information on how and when to apply for a wasted costs order, detailing the burden of proof and evidential requirements. It also explains the staged procedure adopted by the court when determining such applications and considers the circumstances in which a wasted costs order may be appealed. For guidance on what a wasted costs order is and the circumstances in which it is appropriate to seek one, see Practice Note: Wasted costs orders. Application by a party or court initiative? A wasted costs order can either be made on the application of a party or on the court's own initiative (CPR PD 46, para 5.3). Application—considerations Where a party is considering making an application for a wasted costs order, it is important to take into account that such applications tend to be very hard fought given that they can involve: • considerable sums of money, and • serious criticism as to the competence or conduct of the respondent that can call into question their integrity and may give rise to serious repercussions It

This Practice Note provides examples of costs judgments where the court has made a wasted costs order. The following judgments provide examples of where the court has made a wasted costs order. The most recent judgment is listed first. Case, citation and News Analysis Factual background Judgment Minh v Da Guang Tankers (Private) Ltd [2026] EWHC 793 (Admlty) In collision proceedings, the claimant’s solicitors had represented that they were instructed by both the claimant and the claimant’s hull insurers, PVI. They were later shown not to have authority from PVI, although the court found that they did have authority from the claimant himself.The defendants sought wasted costs, contending that the representation as to insurer backing caused them and their Club to agree English jurisdiction, provide security and defend the claim in England. The Admiralty Court held that the solicitors’ admitted lack of authority from PVI amounted to a breach of warranty of authority and also justified a wasted costs order. The court found that the representation that insurers stood behind the claim materially

Across the UK, waste is generated from a variety of different sources including the public sector, commercial businesses, industry, agriculture, mining, forestry, fishing and households. Local authorities (LAs) have statutory duties to arrange for the collection and deposit of household waste in their area. In undertaking these duties, LAs offer access to waste services to householders such as kerbside collections, bulky collections, ‘bring banks’ (an unmanned site with a container or a collection of containers for depositing recyclable waste) and household waste recycling centres (HWRC). LAs also have duties to arrange for collection of commercial waste from premises in their areas (if requested) and ensure highways and roads are kept clean from litter and refuse. In the UK, the devolved administrations are responsible for strategy and policy relating to waste management. This has led to each country having their own waste management targets and methods of monitoring progress against those targets. Duty to collect waste Subject to certain exceptions, waste collection authorities (WCAs) in England and Wales have a duty to arrange for the collection

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court heard two applications brought by four brothers seeking to enforce, in different ways, the terms of a Settlement Agreement reached between them, pursuant to which the three claimants were to pay a Settlement Payment to the defendant, and the defendant was to transfer legal title of certain plots of land to the claimants. The question for the court was whether, in circumstances where the defendant failed to transfer legal title, the claimants were nonetheless obliged to continue to meet the instalment payments. The court was required to consider the proper construction of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in particular whether the obligations to pay and to transfer legal title were dependent or independent. The judge’s approach provides a helpful reminder of the need for careful drafting. Written by Alice Whyte, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Law360, London: The financial regulator of a UK crown dependency has fined a Lloyds Bank subsidiary for breaching its anti-money laundering (AML) rules because it didn't use higher-level controls in its commercial relationship with another lender for 12 years.

Water abstraction and impounding—introduction Water is abstracted when surface water or groundwater is taken from any source of supply, and includes temporarily or permanently removing water from a source of supply, and transferring water from one source of supply to another. Source of supply includes: • inland waters (rivers, streams, springs, reservoirs, lakes, ponds and canals) apart from ‘discrete waters’, and • groundwater, including water contained in wells, boreholes and some excavations, except for water stored in sewers, pipes, reservoirs, tanks or other underground works ‘Discrete waters’ are waters which do not discharge into other inland waters within the meaning of WRA 1991, s 221. Under section 25(8) of the Water Resources Act 1991 (WRA 1991), ‘impounding works’ means any dam or other works in inland waters by which water may be impounded or diverted. This includes: • dams • weirs • fish passes • hydropower turbines • reservoir embankments • retaining walls, and • temporary diversion during construction work Water abstraction and impounding form a central part of the regulatory framework