header-logo header-logo

Costs law update

04 September 2008
Issue: 7335 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

The costs team at Kings Chambers explains the principles underlying protective costs orders

The Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 749, [2008] All ER (D) 12 (Jul) has recently refined the principles concerning protective costs orders. Protective costs orders (PCOs) are a type of pre-emptive costs order which (generally speaking) are only available in public law claims. Unlike other pre-emptive costs orders (such as costs capping orders), their aim is not solely to control extravagant expenditure; instead, their aim is to protect litigants who reasonably bring public law proceedings in the public interest from the liability of an adverse costs order in the event that they lose. That said, PCOs can, and often do, impose a cap on the recoverable costs.

Principles matter

The principles guiding these types of orders were established by Mr Justice Dyson (as he then was) in the pre-CPR case of R v Lord Chancellor ex parte Child Poverty Action Group [1998] 2 All ER 755. Following the advent of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll