Tinseltime Ltd v Roberts & Ors

Tinseltime Ltd v Roberts & Ors

A solicitor acting under a CFA, funding disbursements for an impecunious claimant without ATE insurance, does not by that fact alone step outside the normal role of a solicitor so as to justify a non-party costs order. There was no evidence of control or benefit beyond the CFA, nor improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct causally linked to the defendants' costs. Accordingly, neither a non-party costs order nor a wasted costs order is justified.

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 Costs (non Party and Wasted Costs Orders) / Judgment on Application for Costs Against Solicitor for Claimant
Outcome
Application for non-party costs order and wasted costs order against the solicitor dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Wasted Costs Orders, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Solicitor Liability for Costs, Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Costs Non Party Costs Orders Wasted Costs Orders Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Solicitor Liability for Costs Access to Justice

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 Costs (non Party and Wasted Costs Orders) / Judgment on Application for Costs Against Solicitor for Claimant

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

A solicitor acting under a CFA, funding disbursements for an impecunious claimant without ATE insurance, does not by that fact alone step outside the normal role of a solicitor so as to justify a non-party costs order. There was no evidence of control or benefit beyond the CFA, nor improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct causally linked to the defendants' costs. Accordingly, neither a non-party costs order nor a wasted costs order is justified.

Court Disposition

Application for non-party costs order and wasted costs order against the solicitor dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for non-party costs order against Gavin Edmondson dismissed.
  • Permission to proceed with wasted costs application refused.