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
Messrs Burnham Law failed to act with the competence reasonably expected of solicitors by not preparing for trial, instructing counsel, or complying with court directions, directly causing wasted costs to the father. The court exercised its discretion to order Burnham Law to pay the father's wasted costs, including counsel fees and travel expenses.
Source excerpt
Late costs applications were refused as seriously out of time, with no good reason shown, and part of the application was struck out for lack of authority.
Minh v Da Guang Tankers (Private) Ltd & Anor Re: OCEAN UNICORN [2026] EWHC 793 (Admlty) (02 April 2026)
The Admiralty Registrar held that Clyde & Co had authority from the claimant, but breached a warranty by wrongly stating they were instructed by insurers, causing wasted costs.
The Admiralty Court held that solicitors breached a warranty of authority by claiming to act for underwriters, and ordered wasted costs of £127,577.
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
The Upper Tribunal refused JR’s application for costs after the Disclosure and Barring Service reviewed and removed her from the barred lists.
Lords Solicitors LLP and the Claimant were responsible for repeated and serious breaches of the CPR and Practice Directions, including the manufacture and use of an inauthentic solicitor/client bill to mislead the court and the Third Defendant regarding the indemnity principle. This conduct was improper, unreasonable, and negligent, justifying a 50% reduction in the Claimant's assessed costs under CPR 44.11(2)(a) and an order that Lords bear the Third Defendant's additional costs incurred as a result of their conduct under CPR 44.11(2)(b) and CPR 46.8. No sanction was imposed on Ms Wills or M…
Source excerpt
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal against refusal of wasted costs, holding that the representative’s conduct did not meet the required threshold.
The issue of informed consent is fact-sensitive and requires findings of fact based on oral evidence; summary judgment is inappropriate as the Claimant has a realistic prospect of success. The claim for loss of earnings is incoherent and inadequately pleaded, obstructing the just disposal of proceedings, and is struck out. The wasted costs application fails as the Respondent’s conduct does not meet the threshold for a wasted costs order and pursuing a non-hopeless case is not an abuse of process.
Source excerpt
The High Court decided costs after the main trial, ordering indemnity costs against three claimants, standard costs against the others, and staying enforcement of interim payments.
Explore more
