Time limit for claiming costs?

[Alphageek]

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?

[Alphageek]

Bump for the morning posters

[Docman]

A,

 

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

[Alphageek]

No, the order ends on "So the claim is dismissed as is the counterclaim."

[surfaceagentx20]

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

[Alphageek]

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

 

 

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?

[surfaceagentx20]

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

[Alphageek]

Ok, that makes it clearer now. Thanks again x20.

[postggj]

surface gent

 

is there a stickie or template for a wasted costs order

[surfaceagentx20]

'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

[Alphageek]

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.

[postggj]

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

[legalpickle]

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.