Tinseltime Ltd v Roberts & Ors [2012] EWHC 2628 (TCC) (28 September 2012)

Tinseltime Ltd v Roberts & Ors [2012] EWHC 2628 (TCC) (28 September 2012)

A solicitor acting under a CFA and funding disbursements for an impecunious claimant, without ATE insurance, does not by that fact alone become a non-party funder liable for the other party's costs. There must be evidence that the solicitor stepped outside the ordinary role of a solicitor and became a real party to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2628 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Tinseltime Limited; Defendant / Applicant: Eryl Roberts; Defendant / Applicant: M & JT Davies; Defendant / Applicant: Denbighshire County Council; Defendant / Applicant: Welsh Assembly Government; Respondent: Gavin Edmondson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Non Party Costs Order and Wasted Costs Order / Judgment on Defendants' Application for Costs Against Claimant's Solicitor
Outcome
Application for non-party costs order against solicitor dismissed; application for wasted costs order not permitted to proceed further at this stage.
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Solicitor Liability for Costs, Litigation Funding, Wasted Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Professional Negligence Non Party Costs Orders Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Solicitor Liability for Costs Litigation Funding Wasted Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tinseltime Limited

Claimant

Eryl Roberts

Defendant / Applicant

M & JT Davies

Defendant / Applicant

Denbighshire County Council

Defendant / Applicant

Welsh Assembly Government

Defendant / Applicant

Gavin Edmondson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Non Party Costs Order and Wasted Costs Order / Judgment on Defendants' Application for Costs Against Claimant's Solicitor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a solicitor acting under a CFA and funding disbursements for an impecunious claimant without ATE insurance is liable to a non-party costs order as a funder
  2. 2 Whether the solicitor's conduct justified a wasted costs order

Ratio Decidendi

A solicitor acting under a CFA and funding disbursements for an impecunious claimant, without ATE insurance, does not by that fact alone become a non-party funder liable for the other party's costs. There must be evidence that the solicitor stepped outside the ordinary role of a solicitor and became a real party to the litigation. No such evidence was found here. The solicitor's conduct did not justify a wasted costs order.

Court Disposition

Application for non-party costs order against solicitor dismissed; application for wasted costs order not permitted to proceed further at this stage.

Orders

  • No non-party costs order made against Mr Edmondson.
  • Application for wasted costs order against Mr Edmondson not permitted to proceed further.