The recommendation to implement Jackson LJ's proposals on costs may require legislation, certainly if the additional liabilities associated with conditional fee arrangements are no longer to be recoverable
from unsuccessful defendants.
On the facts of these appeals, it seems reasonable to infer that recognizing interest as an expense would lead to a transfer of resources between classes of parties in
which unsuccessful defendants are exposed to the risks of paying high interest rates designed to pay for the cost of lending money, not just to the successful party in the case but other plaintiffs who receive financing but may not recover moneys to pay for their loans...
To fill the gaps, conditional fee agreements (CFAs) have been made lawful; and success fees and after the event Insurance (ATE) have been made recoverable
from unsuccessful defendants.
Even a successful plaintiff who recovers damages at trial but does not recover more in damages than a previous offer made by
the unsuccessful defendant may find that they are the subject of an adverse cost award.
In 50 % of these cases, the tribunals refrained from ordering
the unsuccessful defendant to pay the claimant's legal costs.
It was necessary that the client incur the charges himself in order for them to be recovered against
an unsuccessful defendant.
There is no jurisprudence that suggests that
the unsuccessful defendant may bring a new motion for a stay at some point down the road on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to bring its summary judgment motion.
The majority decision of the House of Lords in Aneco [2002] PNLR 8 (in which Lord Sumption had appeared as counsel for
the unsuccessful defendant) was confined to its own particular factual context and the legal analysis in the dissenting judgment of Lord Millett was preferred to that of the majority.
In circumstances where a plaintiff pursues multiple defendants, and is successful against one defendant but not successful against other defendants, they may end up being liable for more in costs to the successful defendants than they were awarded against
the unsuccessful defendant.
R (on the application of Lonsdale) v Bar Standards Board [2014] EWHC 4353 (Admin) Whether a disciplinary tribunal had power to make a costs award against
an unsuccessful defendant, where the costs in question were those of the tribunal itself
The trial judge ordered
the unsuccessful defendants to pay the plaintiff's solicitor and client costs from the date of the offer.
The reforms prevent the recovery of success fees and insurance premiums paid by successful claimants to
unsuccessful defendants.
Dispute Resolution analysis: Costs advocate Alex Bagnall of Just Costs Solicitors comments on what lessons can be learned from a recent case relating to the cost liability of
an unsuccessful defendant in a multi handed case and considers the wider implications for these types of cases.