|
Horsford v Bird & Ors, PC(Ant)(Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Mance) 28/11/2006
In the circumstances, there were no factors which justified a departure from the normal expectation, set out in Chrulew v Borm-Reid & Co 1 All ER 953 and preserved by the CPR r.47.18(1), that the party whose bill was being taxed was entitled to his costs of the taxation.
Kuenyehia & Ors v International Hospitals Group Ltd, High Ct, 15/12/2006
In the circumstances, it was not appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion under CPR r.25.12 to make an order for security for costs against the claimants.
Haji-Ioannou v Frangos & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 6/12/2006
While non-compliance with a rule, practice direction or court order was the only jurisdictional requirement for the exercise of the power contained in CPR r.44.14 it would usually be appropriate as a matter of discretion to consider the extent of the misconduct which had occurred in the course of the non-compliance.
Northstar Systems Ltd & Ors v Fielding & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 6/12/2006
In a case where it had been found that the successful party had been dishonest, the fact that the paying party had not sought an order from the judge reflecting that misconduct did not preclude the paying party, when it came to the assessment of costs, from referring to the finding of dishonesty when considering whether the costs incurred by the dishonest party were reasonable.
|
