Jump to content


Time limit for claiming costs?


Alphageek
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4588 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Bank sues debtor, debtor defends and counter-claims. Bank defend counter-claim.

 

At hearing, DJ dismisses claim and counter-claim.

 

If the debtor has the right to claim costs from the bank in this situation, are there any time limits imposed upon claiming.

 

If debtor is entitled and not out-of-time, is the correct first step to deliver to the bank (or its solicitors) a draft bill of costs?

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A,

 

If the DJ dismissed both claim and counterclaim, did he not deal with the issue of costs in his order?

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

The succesful party has the right to claim costs following the tenor of the judgment. He must exercise that right on pronouncement and then suceed in obtaining an order for costs. If the succesful party kept his mouth shut and did not ask for nor obtain an order for costs, he has no order for costs against which time runs. Further he has no power to subsequently ask for costs post judgment. He must ask for costs on the day the court determines the issues between the parties because that is the day when the court is best placed to decide that question.

 

If you do not have an order which expressly states your opponent is to pay your costs you lack the right to proceed to have the court determine the amount of those costs.

 

x20

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the succesful party kept his mouth shut and did not ask for nor obtain an order for costs...

 

:D

 

Thank you very much x20.

 

Ok, so I am too late. You live and learn.

 

One final question if I may?

 

As the claim and part-20 claim were both dismissed (I was the part-20 claimant), could either party be declared the winner and so be in a position to ask for costs to be assessed?

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the claim and part-20 claim were both dismissed (I was the part-20 claimant), could either party be declared the winner and so be in a position to ask for costs to be assessed?

 

Yep. You won on the claim and your opponent won on the Part 20 claim. That puts either in a position to ask for costs and if granted, to advance argument as to the proportion of the costs of the one party the other should be order to pay.

 

x20

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Wasted costs' properly called refer to those costs occasioned by the breach of duty and like shortcomings of a litigant's legal representative. Wasted costs should not be confused with the ordinary decision of the court running on from a finding as to the legal merits of the case whereby the costs of the succesful litigant are ordered to be paid by the unsuccesful litigant.

 

I don't know if a stickie exists but if not and in time, I would be happy to piece together an article of some sort. Costs as a topic in civil litigation probably takes up the largerst lump of text in the whole of the CPR and is for ever being tested and pulled hither and thither.

 

x20

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if a stickie exists but if not and in time, I would be happy to piece together an article of some sort. Costs as a topic in civil litigation probably takes up the largerst lump of text in the whole of the CPR and is for ever being tested and pulled hither and thither.

 

x20

 

Hi x20, I understand it's a tricky subject but a well thought out post informing the LiP how to negotiate the complexities of claiming costs would be very, very useful to site members.

 

I also think that properly claiming costs against errant banks and DCAs may make them start to think twice about bringing ill-founded cases in the future.

 

After all, they are in the money/profit business and they more they are deprived of it, the more they may play by the rules.

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not going off topic

 

surfacegent

 

say a dca starts a court claim against you

they have no chance of winnining, say they have no cca

they still push it through the legal system

defence, aq etc

as its say a small claims, cost are not an issue as such but then the dca pulls out and discontinue before its allocated to a track

 

under those circumstance, can a defendant go for full costs being the dca are a vexatiouse litigant and no hope of winning the claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
not going off topic

 

surfacegent

 

say a dca starts a court claim against you

they have no chance of winnining, say they have no cca

they still push it through the legal system

defence, aq etc

as its say a small claims, cost are not an issue as such but then the dca pulls out and discontinue before its allocated to a track

 

under those circumstance, can a defendant go for full costs being the dca are a vexatiouse litigant and no hope of winning the claim

I know I wasn't asked, but I thought I'd answer.

 

Yes and No. An Application on Notice may be made to claim costs, but considering the matter would have proceeded on the small claims track costs would have been unlikely to be awarded, and when awarded are normally only awarded in a hearing, so considering no hearing was needed and now a hearing will be necessary due to the Defendant's Application (which would cost £75), the odds would be that it would be the Defendant paying costs for the Claimant dealing with the Application hearing, and not the Claimant receiving costs for the waste of time prior to that matter.

 

Costs in small claims are only awarded if one party is unreasonable (in accordance with CPR 27.14[2][g]) and if it reaches a hearing, unlike in fast track or multi-track, where such a matter would likely result in a wasted costs order.

 

And you are confusing the terms: A vexatious litigant is a litigant who takes a case on the same grounds, numerous times, against the same person/entity or associated persons/entities, knowing there is no chance. You are dealing with an unreasonable litigant. A vexatious litigant would be marked as such and not be able to litigate in the future.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:!: All the information I impart is my advice based on my experience. It does not constitute professional advice. If in doubt, always consult with a professional. :!:

 

:-) If you feel my post has been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...