COST BITES 464 : THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING A PROPER APPLICATION TO VARY A COSTS CAP: TICKING A BOX IS NOT ENOUGH: THE COURT APPLIES THE £5,000 AARHUS LIMIT: SOMETHING TO CHEW THE CUD OVER
It is not often we get to consider the issue of costs and cattle. Here the issue is considered in relation to costs limits imposed by the Aarhus Cap and delay by the defendants in challenging the application of the…
IF YOU CAN’T PROVE IT THEN YOU DON’T GET IT: LIFE IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE: WEBINAR ON PROVING DAMAGES: 22nd OCTOBER 2026
We have looked many times on this blog at cases where litigants have simply failed to prove things. There have been numerous occasions when this relates to a failure to prove damages. This webinar looks at how litigators can avoid…
COST BITES 463: HOW SHOULD A COSTS ORDER BE PHRASED? MAKING SURE THAT IT DOES NOT JUST OVER “COUNSEL STANDING ON THEIR FEET DURING THE APPLICATION”
Here we have an unusual disagreement about how an order for costs should be phrased. The judge made it clear that the order should make it clear that it was not just covering advocacy. “I prefer the Bourlakovas’ formulation. It…
WHAT HAS CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF DONE ABOUT… INTERIM ORDERS FOR COSTS: 10 KEY POINTS AND USEFUL LINKS
We have looked at the issue of interim costs twice over the past few days. It is an important element of litigation. An order for costs does not put money in the receiving party’s bank account. Detailed assessment may take…
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
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.