Claudine Morgan and Mary Barrett write for New Law Journal on liability for costs on discontinuation
In an article for New Law Journal, Claudine Morgan, Legal Director, and Mary Barrett, Associate, discuss why defendants should not presume their costs will be met when claims are discontinued. While the general rule is that the defendant should not bear the burden of costs for a claim deemed not worth pursuing, the court may decide otherwise. But when, why, and under what circumstances?
In the piece, they examine six key principles provided by the Court of Appeal in Brookes v HSBC plc on the disapplication of CPR 38.6, in relation to what will and will not be considered.
They conclude the piece with some sterling advice:
If an application is made, the dirty laundry of pre-action correspondence will inevitably be aired and parties should be prepared for criticism on conduct. An aggressive approach or tone can look very different with hindsight.
Read the full piece in New Law Journal here.
Related coverage
Liability for Costs on Discontinuation: When may the Court deviate from the ‘Usual Order’?
