0370 270 6000

Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Wolfe, Chancery Division

14 March 2003
The issues

Detailed Assessment – proportionality – Lowndes -v- The Home Office.

The facts

The Bank had instituted possession proceedings, which had subsequently been compromised, allowing the owners to sell the house privately and for the Claimant to receive 50% of the proceeds. Lloyds sued to recover its share of a side sale of fixtures and fittings and received a Costs Order. Those costs were assessed at £48,845.00 on Detailed Assessment and the costs of Detailed Assessment totalled £32,181.00. The Judge made no adjustment for proportionality. The Defendant/paying party appealed, arguing amongst other matters, that the costs award was not proportionate.

The decision

1. The Judge had not been referred to Lowndes -v- The Home Office.

2. As he had not been referred to it, he did not follow it. This was a serious procedural irregularity.

3. The matter should be referred back to the Judge to consider by way of a preliminary Judgment, whether proportionality was relevant.

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