0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

beware of leaving costs in settled cases to the court to decide

24 July 2014

The recent case of RG Spiller Ltd v Derhalli highlights the dangers of leaving the issue of costs to the court when the substantive issues have been resolved.

The claimant had previously sought and obtained a limited injunction against the defendant. The parties eventually settled and the consent order included a provision giving the parties liberty to apply if they were unable to agree costs. No agreement was reached and so the claimant applied for its costs asserting that, because it was the successful party, the usual costs order under CPR 44.2(2) should apply.

The judge commented that if parties settle all issues except costs, they take the risk that the court will not be prepared to make any determination other than no order as to costs. The judge considered that an injunction had been applied for prematurely as some notice should have been given. The court could take into account the behaviour of the parties and the appropriate order was therefore no order for costs.

So parties beware! Costs do not necessarily follow the event as the claimant failed to obtain its costs of the action and was also ordered to pay the costs of the costs application.

related opinions

IR35 changes - six months and counting...

In his 2018 Autumn Budget, the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced a significant change to the way liability for IR35 breaches will be dealt with for private sector companies from April 2020.

View blog

Court of Appeal confirms all employment tribunal judgments must be published on the register, except in national security cases

Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online.

View blog

Marriott International: a look behind the ICO’s £99m fine and what this means for corporate acquisitions

Last month, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced notice of its intention to fine (NOI) Marriott International, Inc. £99m for infringements of the GDPR.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up