Furthermore, they are not exhaustive.Ī costs order may be made where a person has neither controlled nor funded the litigation, as where solicitors failed to obtain legal expenses insurance for their client and failed to inform them of their costs exposure.”
These two grounds are therefore not mutually exclusive. We may refer to this ground as the funding ground.Īlthough the two grounds appear distinct they are bound up together because the court would not normally order a funder to pay costs unless the funder stood to benefit from the funding arrangement, as where the funder agrees to fund proceedings in exchange for a share of the recovery. It concerns situations where the non-party has helped a party to bring or sustain proceedings by providing financial or other assistance, without which the litigation would not have taken place and the successful party would not have incurred expenses. The second type of justification is more complex and troublesome. We may refer to this ground of ordering costs as the control–benefit ground. In such a case the non-party is effectively a party, and since they would benefit from a favourable outcome of the proceedings, they should also bear the costs of an unfavourable outcome.
A non-party may be ordered to pay costs if they controlled the proceedings for their own benefit. “There are mainly two broad reasons that may justify a costs award against a non-party. … The passage from Professor Zuckerman’s book provides a reasonable summary of the general position: In contrast with Select Car Rentals (North West) Limited v Esure Services Ltd WLR 4426 where a non-party costs order had been granted, the CHO in the instant case had not retained solicitors for the hire customer, was not in direct contact with the at-fault insurer, did not have the power to deduct its hire charges from any personal injury damages, nor did it operate as de facto claims manager for its hire customer.
0 kommentar(er)
