0370 270 6000

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

80% hours for 100% pay? That’ll do nicely

As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.

View blog

Wide interpretation of “detriment” caused victimisation claim to succeed

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in the case of Warburton v The Chief Constable.

View blog

Restrictive Covenants – are changes coming?

Restrictive covenants are widely recognised as a complex area of employment law that is of key importance to many organisations. However more recently, they have become a hot topic with the Government launching their consultation.

View blog

Are whistleblowers entitled to keep their employer’s confidential documents?

In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up