0370 270 6000

Soliman v Islington London Borough Council

8 November 2001
The issues

Costs at interim awards after judgment.

The facts

The Defendant settle the Claimants case for £50,000 plus costs to be assessed if not agreed. Claimant asked for a payment on account. The Defendant Insurer’s did not immediately agree but asked for details as to the amount of their costs instead. These were provided. Insurer’s considered that the costs were high, failed to concede that a payment on account was appropriate. The trial date had not been vacated and the parties appeared before the Judge on that day for argument on the costs issue. The Judge awarded a payment on account and the issue raised as to the cost of the Hearing. The Claimant sought indemnity costs.

The decision

Ordinarily a payment on account of costs would follow where a claim had been settled on terms and where there was no risk of appeal and where the Defendant was not impecunious. It was unreasonable therefore to have refused to concede the principal. That refusal had made the Hearing necessary. This was because had the principal been conceded it was highly likely that an agreement would have been reached as to a figure. Claimant should have his costs of the Hearing but not on the indemnity basis.

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