England and Wales Case Law

Various Claimants v Mercedes-Benz Group AG & Ors

The court found that the claimants' approach to budgeting, despite previous judicial criticism, remained overly ambitious and insufficiently adjusted, justifying a departure from the usual costs order. The court ordered a 20% deduction from any recoverable claimants' costs for costs management activities, while costs of preparing for and attending the hearing remain 'costs in the case'.

Source excerpt

• Costs management
• Costs orders
• Budgeting
• Litigation conduct

Read case analysis

Taha Pharmaceuticals v Capsugel Belgium NV

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against orders refusing relief from sanctions after the claimant failed to comply with an unless order for security for costs.

• Relief from sanctions
• Security for costs
• Strike out
• Unless order
• Proportionality
• Litigation conduct

Read case analysis

M (A Child: Costs), Re

The Court of Appeal allowed a father’s appeal against a costs order in private law children proceedings, holding there was no sufficient basis to depart from the usual no-costs rule.

• Costs in children proceedings
• Appeals
• Litigation conduct
• Child arrangements
• Domestic abuse findings
• Family-law

Read case analysis

BY v GC (No. 3: Costs)

A costs order against the respondent is justified primarily due to his knowingly inaccurate valuation of Company A in his Form E, which constitutes litigation misconduct under r28.3(7)(e), and to a lesser extent his approach to the valuation of CC. However, the applicant's unreasonable open offers and the fact that both parties succeeded and failed on major issues warrant a significantly reduced costs order. The respondent is ordered to pay £19,000 for the Daniels v Walker application and a further £60,000 as a penalty for litigation conduct, with no further order as to costs.

Source excerpt

• Financial remedies
• Costs orders
• Litigation conduct
• Expert evidence
• Disclosure obligations

Read case analysis

BY v CG (No. 3: Costs)

BY v CG (No. 3: Costs) [2026] EWFC 50 (03 March 2026)

The court ordered H to pay W £79,000 towards costs in these financial remedy proceedings, mainly because of a knowingly inaccurate Form E disclosure, but otherwise made no order.

• Financial remedies
• Costs orders
• Litigation conduct
• Non-disclosure
• Expert evidence
• Open offers

Read case analysis

Y v X (Costs)

Mother's solicitors' repeated breaches of court orders, late filing of bundles and witness statements, and failure to explain or apologise for non-compliance constituted unreasonable and negligent conduct. However, most breaches did not causally result in wasted costs for father's solicitors, except for the breach of the order dated 2nd September 2025, for which a wasted costs award is justified. Costs for preparation of bundles and witness statement by mother's solicitors are disallowed. Father's solicitors also acted unreasonably but no wasted costs order is made against them.

Source excerpt

• Costs orders
• Wasted costs
• Litigation conduct
• Child welfare
• Compliance with court directions

Read case analysis

Serious Fraud Office & Anor v Litigation Capital Limited

Security for costs is justified against trustees in bankruptcy who adopt litigation where the original litigant demonstrated misconduct and lack of good faith, and bankruptcy does not shield trustees from such orders under CPR 3.1(5).

Source excerpt

• Security for costs
• Bankruptcy
• Trustee liability
• Litigation conduct

Read case analysis

Smith & Ors v Campbell & Ors

Smith & Ors v Campbell & Ors [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch) (29 January 2026)

Post-trial costs ruling in trustee-removal litigation: no order as to costs, and the trustees remained entitled to indemnity from the trust assets.

• Costs orders
• Trustee indemnity
• Removal of trustees
• Alternative dispute resolution
• Litigation conduct
• Trustee-indemnity

Read case analysis

Taha Pharmaceuticals v Capsugel Belgium NV

Taha Pharmaceuticals v Capsugel Belgium NV [2026] EWCA Civ 38 (29 January 2026)

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against strike-out and refusal of relief from sanctions, holding the claimant’s default was serious and self-induced.

• Relief from sanctions
• Security for costs
• Strike out of claim
• Unless order
• Proportionality
• Litigation conduct

Read case analysis

RKV v JWC

RKV v JWC [2025] EWFC 429 (B) (05 December 2025)

The Family Court awarded indemnity costs against the respondent for serious litigation misconduct, and ordered him to pay costs of the costs application too.

• Costs
• Financial remedies
• Litigation conduct
• Indemnity costs
• Anonymity
• Family-law

Read case analysis