White v White

White v White

The appeal was dismissed because the judge below was entitled to refuse a wasted costs order on the grounds that no warning was given at the time, the costs involved were disproportionate to the sums at stake, and the orders made as to costs in the interlocutory applications were material factors. The court emphasized that satellite litigation over small sums should be discouraged and that the proportionality of the costs justified refusal of the wasted costs application.

Parties
Applicant: Barry White; Defendant: Peter White (deceased); Defendant: Brian White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division on Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Orders, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Wasted Costs Orders Exercise of Judicial Discretion Proportionality of Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry White

Applicant

Peter White (deceased)

Defendant

Brian White

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division on Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to make a wasted costs order against solicitors for delays in three interlocutory applications
  2. 2 Whether failure to give warning of a wasted costs application at the time precludes a later application
  3. 3 Whether the proportionality of the costs involved justifies refusing the wasted costs application

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge below was entitled to refuse a wasted costs order on the grounds that no warning was given at the time, the costs involved were disproportionate to the sums at stake, and the orders made as to costs in the interlocutory applications were material factors. The court emphasized that satellite litigation over small sums should be discouraged and that the proportionality of the costs justified refusal of the wasted costs application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Appellant to pay the Respondent's costs of and occasioned by this appeal, such costs to be subject to detailed assessment under section 11 of the Access to Justice Act