The High Court recently reiterated the general principles which govern its power to order a non-party to pay the costs of another party to court proceedings. The court's power is statutory but the general principles that govern the exercise of its discretion arise out of case law. The case law demonstrates that the court's discretion to make an order for costs against a non-party is wide. The interests of justice are paramount.
A High Court judge recently dismissed a party's appeal against a refusal to grant permission to issue subpoenas directed at another party's legal representatives. At the same time, the judge reminded litigants and their legal representatives that subpoenas (directing a witness to attend court to give evidence, produce documents or do both) should be issued in a timely manner, and that late subpoenas which upset the court's case management of trial dates are likely to be frowned upon.
The Norwich Pharmacal order is an important tool for combating fraud. Given the prevalence of electronic and identity fraud, the ability of victims to recover lost money through the civil courts has assumed a high profile of late. For plaintiffs who fall prey to such fraudsters, the ability to obtain a court order prohibiting a defendant from disposing of (among other things) money in a bank account (ie, a Mareva injunction) and to obtain timely disclosure of details of alleged wrongdoing from a defendant's bank (eg, Norwich Pharmacal relief) is often crucial.
The High Court recently handed down a practice note relating to the practice of making settlement offers or payments into court in cases involving claims on behalf of persons under a disability. The practice note confirms the previously understood position that the self-contained procedural regime for formal sanctioned offers and sanctioned payments in Order 22 of the court rules does not apply to claims for money arising out of proceedings on behalf of persons under a disability.
A couple of recent first-instance decisions demonstrate the courts' wide discretion to award costs between parties based on a higher rate of recovery (referred to as an 'indemnity basis'). Such costs are not literally an indemnity – the receiving party does not recover all of their costs from the paying party. While indemnity costs are not the norm, many parties and their legal representatives often seek such costs without sufficient regard to whether this is actually justified.
The costs of pursuing related arbitration proceedings and fighting extradition proceedings could be costs incurred in the 'ordinary and proper course of business' according to a recent Court of Appeal decision. In terms of arbitration expenditure, the decision illustrates that where the proposed expenditure or transaction is complex, the court may not be in a position to make the factual findings necessary for it to authorise the expenditure in advance.
The Court of Appeal has ordered rectification resulting in one party being in breach of warranty and liable to pay damages. It is rare for the court to order rectification as it is often difficult to satisfy the test to do so. This case serves as a welcome reminder that the court is willing to order rectification to prevent one party from seeking to take advantage of a situation when a mistake is discovered.
The Court of Appeal recently upheld a High Court decision highlighting the risk that English and Italian courts may reach different decisions on the underlying factual background of related disputes even where the disputes could be said to fall under different agreements. The decision clarifies that the English courts put the certainty of industry standard documentation first when determining the applicable jurisdiction.
The High Court recently struck out a claim by the beneficial owner of certain notes that had sought a declaration that an event of default had occurred. The case illustrates how administrative decisions in a foreign state in relation to EU directives are recognised in the English courts and the reluctance of courts to make decisions based on the anticipated outcome of foreign proceedings.
The Court of Appeal recently examined the circumstances in which a threat not to enter into a contract can amount to economic duress and found that, broadly speaking, it is when pressure is exerted in bad faith. The main thread running through the court's decision is the need for clarity and certainty in contract law, particularly in commercial dealings.