Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2016 » October » 26

WHEN SHOULD A WINNING PARTY PAY THE COSTS OF THE OTHER SIDE?

October 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Hospira UK Limited -v- Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC [2016] EWHC 2661 Pat Mr Justice Henry Carr considered the question of when an “issue based” costs order should be made. “In my view, this apparent dichotomy may be resolved by a…

REASONABLENESS AND PROPORTIONALITY: A DIRECT IMPACT UPON LITIGATION DECISIONS

October 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

I have been writing for some time about the impact of “proportionality” upon the practice of litigation itself.  One example of this can be found in the judgment of Master James in  Briggs & 598 others -v-  First Choice Holidays…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • AN INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING “MIXED” SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO…)
  • WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS “UNTENABLE”: LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT TO WEAR TO COURT: "IF YOU ATTEND COURT DRESSED INAPPROPRIATELY, COURT STAFF MAY REFUSE YOU ENTRY"
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS "UNTENABLE": LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE
  • WHEN A CASE - WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS "UNTENABLE": HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING "MIXED" SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO...)
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop