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
The High Court’s Costs Office held that the March 2025 sentencing hearing was not a Newton hearing, so the appellant was entitled only to a cracked trial fee.
Employer intervener is entitled to reasonable costs of involvement, limited to costs of reading in, responding, and attending hearing, not full costs as if a second defendant. Bank's costs to be paid on standard basis, not indemnity, as claimant's conduct was not wholly unreasonable. No stay of order pending appeal as refusal of injunction cannot be stayed and no prejudice arises.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that VAT on the relevant costs could be recovered by the first defendant’s liquidators under VAT Regulations 1995 reg. 111(5), and awarded the claimants £1,000 for the VAT submissions.
The Senior Costs Judge allowed counsel’s appeal, finding the reduction in hourly rate was unjustified and restoring reasonable remuneration under legal aid rules.
Ozemelam, R. v [2026] EWHC 1155 (SCCO) (14 May 2026)
Appeal allowed in a legal aid remuneration dispute over special preparation fees. The court held the solicitors’ 101.33 hours to review disclosure were reasonable.
Appeal on litigant-in-person costs allowed. The tribunal held that Dr Razoq’s unchallenged evidence of financial loss was not properly assessed and that the two-thirds cap was misapplied.
Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors [2026] EWHC 1051 (Comm) (06 May 2026)
The Commercial Court refused most post-judgment security-for-costs requests but granted security for anticipated detailed assessment proceedings.
Post-judgment security for costs application partly refused and partly granted, with security ordered only for detailed assessment proceedings.
Due to significant unexplained increases and discrepancies in costs schedules, and absence of supporting evidence, summary assessment is inappropriate and detailed assessment is required.
Source excerpt
The default judgment was set aside and the interim third party debt order discharged because, although the Defendant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of defending the claim due to procedural deficiencies and lack of evidence, the seriousness and complexity of the claim, potential counterclaims, and proportionality justified allowing the matter to proceed to trial. Relief from sanctions was granted, with costs awarded against the Defendant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
