0370 270 6000

Williams v Dolin

15 September 2000
The issues

Whether a party should be entitled to claim costs at a fast track trial having failed to lodge its statement of costs in time.

The facts

Road traffic accident – allocated to the fast track – Claimant awarded just under £5000 in damages. Claimant had failed to serve a costs schedule in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules and no explanation was offered to save “possible administrative oversight”. Defendant contended that that explanation did not satisfy the test of exceptional circumstances and invited Judge to make no order as to costs.

The decision

Claimant should be limited to the recovery of Counsel’s brief fee plus VAT, the issue fee and the fee for preparing the medical report. All other costs disallowed. The rule in the practice direction was clear. The Claimants Solicitor had had ample opportunity to become acquainted with it.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up