The Wasted Costs Jurisdiction

Author: Evans, Hugh

Source: Modern Law Review, Volume 64, Number 1, January 2001 , pp. 51-62(12)

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

Buy & download fulltext article:

OR

Price: $48.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

The wasted costs jurisdiction is flawed for six reasons, based on an analysis of all reported cases in the last nine years and five years of statistics provided by the Bar Mutual Insurance Fund Limited, and despite the guidance laid down by the Court of Appeal in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205. First, it is very costly proportionate to the amount recovered. Secondly, judges can initiate a wasted costs enquiry, which is unfair and even more disproportionately costly. Thirdly, it is procedurally complex. Fourthly, it is unpredictable whether the client will waive privilege, and what the consequences will be whether or not privilege is waived. Fifthly, it is not possible for solicitors and barristers to make contribution claims against each other. Sixthly, it is mostly used against lawyers representing legally aided litigants from whom costs cannot be recovered.

Keywords: Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund; Courts and Legal Services Act 1990; Ridehalgh v Horsefield; wasted costs

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00308

Publication date: January 1, 2001

Related content

Tools

Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content

Text size:

A | A | A | A
Share this item with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. print icon Print this page