Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Given the compromise of the security for costs application, the history of engagement and shortcomings on both sides, and consistent with authorities and CPR 44.2, it is not appropriate to make any costs order; the proper order is no order as to costs.
Source excerpt
Harrington & Charles Trading Company Ltd & Ors v Mehta & Ors [2026] EWHC 387 (Ch) (19 February 2026)
The High Court made no order as to costs on a security for costs application that was resolved by an amended ATE policy, leaving only costs in issue.
Pan-NOx Emissions Group Litigation (Funding Information and Disclosure Hearing 21 November 2025) [2025] EWHC 3198 (KB) (05 December 2025)
The High Court decided costs after a funding-information hearing in Pan-NOx group litigation, awarding applicants their reasonable costs with limited deductions in some JLG claims.
Contis Group Ltd & Anor v Swipewallet Holdings Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3065 (Comm) (21 November 2025)
The Commercial Court ordered bifurcation of trial and granted security for costs, finding limited overlap between liability and quantum and only partial protection from ATE insurance.
Lloyds Developments Ltd v Accor HotelServices UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 2011 (TCC) (31 July 2025)
The High Court approved final ATE insurance wording as security for costs, requiring express anti-fraud wording and awarding Accor 55% of its reasonable costs.
The High Court approved ATE security for costs with an anti-avoidance endorsement, requiring clear wording that fraud by any person would not defeat cover.
Lloyds Developments Ltd v Accor HotelServices UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 1238 (TCC) (20 May 2025)
The High Court considered whether ATE insurance could count as security for costs and found the draft policy presently inadequate, but allowed Lloyds time to refine it.
The court considered whether ATE insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement could replace payment into court as security for costs, and identified drafting defects in the policy.
Costs relating to the adequacy of ATE insurance are recoverable as they arose directly from the defence to the funding information applications; the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies, with deductions only where relative success warrants it.
Source excerpt
The settlement sum is reasonable for the minor's injuries. The success fee deduction is capped at 25% of damages and, based on a reasonable assessment of base costs, the full £900.05 is deductible. The ATE premium of £336 is also a reasonable and deductible expense. The solicitor-client costs claimed were excessive and appeared artificially inflated, but even a reasonable assessment would exceed the cap, so the deduction is permitted. The Defendant is liable for the full medical report fee as claimed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
