BNM v Mirror Group Newspapers [2016] EWHC B1 (Costs)

Costs: Keep it in proportion

Gwendoline Davies and Claire Acklam make sense of the rules and recent case law on proportionality of costs ‘Even if costs are reasonable this does not mean that they will necessarily be proportionate. The court must identify which of the factors listed in CPR 44.3(5) are relevant to the case and relate them to a …

Continue reading "Costs: Keep it in proportion"

This post is only available to members.

Costs: Out with the old

Paul Jones sets out the lack of consensus on proportionality since the end of ATE premiums and success fees ‘Regarding the exclusion of the ATE premium when considering proportionality, the master, again, drew a distinction between the pre-April 2013 rules, where the ATE would have been considered separately, and the new rules, where there was …

Continue reading "Costs: Out with the old"

This post is only available to members.

Costs: Additional problems with proportionality

Paul Jones analyses a recent case in which costs were incurred before and after the introduction of the current proportionality rules ‘In deciding whether the costs claimed are reasonable and (on a standard basis assessment) proportionate, the court will consider the amount of any additional liability separately from the base costs.’ If one could somehow …

Continue reading "Costs: Additional problems with proportionality"

This post is only available to members.

Costs: Sense and susceptibility

Ieuan Jones explores a controversial decision implementing the proportionality test ‘Many see BNM as a bellwether that the new test will be applied in a way that could potentially severely diminish a party’s costs, even if it is decided the costs were reasonably incurred.’ Following the controversial costs decision in BNM v MGN Ltd [2016], …

Continue reading "Costs: Sense and susceptibility"

This post is only available to members.