Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2026 » October » 15
COST BITES 462: A “TOP-HEAVY” LEGAL TEAM AND £929,000  CLAIMED IN COSTS: COURT ORDERS A PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF LESS THAN 50%: THE "RULE OF THUMB" OF 60% IS NO ALWAYS APPROPRIATE

COST BITES 462: A “TOP-HEAVY” LEGAL TEAM AND £929,000 CLAIMED IN COSTS: COURT ORDERS A PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF LESS THAN 50%: THE “RULE OF THUMB” OF 60% IS NO ALWAYS APPROPRIATE

October 15, 2026 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Interim Payments, Members Content

We are returning to the case we looked at yesterday.  Having determined that it was appropriate for the court to order the applicants to pay the respondents’ costs of the application the judge then considered the question of the amount…

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

  • COST BITES 462: A “TOP-HEAVY” LEGAL TEAM AND £929,000 CLAIMED IN COSTS: COURT ORDERS A PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF LESS THAN 50%: THE “RULE OF THUMB” OF 60% IS NO ALWAYS APPROPRIATE
  • COST BITES 461: “LOSING PARTY” SHOULD PAY COSTS AT THE END OF HEARING, DESPITE HAVING BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION TO APPEAL
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 99: ONCE AGAIN – A BARE DENIAL WILL NOT DO: DEFENCE STRUCK OUT: “THIS RULE IS NOT A MATTER OF FORMALITY”
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY (ii): THE DEFENDANT’S WITNESS HAD NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES, KEY DOCUMENTS AND KEY WITNESSES WERE NOT PRESENT
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY (1): THE ABSENCE OF FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE LEADS TO THE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION BEING REFUSED

Top Posts

COST BITES 461: "LOSING PARTY" SHOULD PAY COSTS AT THE END OF HEARING, DESPITE HAVING BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION TO APPEAL
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HALLUCINATIONS - CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR THE PROFESSION AGAIN: "... THIS DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE CONSIDERABLE PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH CAN ARISE WHEN INAPPROPRIATE USE IS MADE OF AI"
HOUSING CASES AND ALLOCATION TO THE FAST TRACK: THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM WAS BASED ON AN EARLIER COMPROMISE DID NOT MEAN THAT THIS WAS A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK MATTER
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 99: ONCE AGAIN - A BARE DENIAL WILL NOT DO: DEFENCE STRUCK OUT: "THIS RULE IS NOT A MATTER OF FORMALITY"
PARTIES SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED: JUDGE HIGHLY CRITICAL OF DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT OF LITIGATION

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

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.