News

Costs Penalties in Litigation Proceedings

  • November 23, 2015
  • By Hunters Law

The recent case of GBM Minerals Engineering Consultants v GB Minerals Holdings [2015] EWHC 3091 (TCC) has highlighted the importance of maintaining a sense of perspective in litigation proceedings, in order to avoid being penalised in costs.

In a case before the High Court, each party had sought permission to amend its pleadings. Each set of amendments was opposed by the other side, for the sole reason of hoping to gain an “opportunistic advantage” over its opponent. The amendments were subsequently allowed by the court, and it was held that the neither party had had good reason for opposing the other side’s amendments. If the amendments had been unopposed, the hearing would have been much shorter and cheaper. Further, both parties had previously been directed to agree costs, but subsequently decided to “fight bitterly over every possible inch of ground”.

In a case described by the judge as “the very antithesis of cost-effective and efficient litigation”, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs, as a result of their unreasonable behaviour. The essence of the judgment was that if parties insist on pursuing “litigation of attrition”, it may well be that the court decides not to award costs to either party.

The case serves as a reminder both to clients and their solicitors always to bear in mind the bigger picture when considering whether to obstruct the efforts of their opponents.

If you would like further information, please contact the partner at Hunters having responsibility for your legal matters, or (for new enquiries) please contact a member of our Dispute Resolution team.

Related News

Jul 12, 2017
Preventative measures to reduce the risk of potential inheritance disputes
Mar 17, 2017
Richard Kershaw comments on Ilott v Mitson Supreme Court judgment in The Times Law Brief
Dec 12, 2016
Richard Kershaw comments on Ilott v Mitson Supreme Court case in the Financial Times, Family Law Week and New Law Journal
Nov 29, 2016
Rejection to register Caffè Nero EU trademarks
Nov 08, 2016
Charities vs children: who decides?
Sep 29, 2016
A New Form Of Copyright Infringement: The Posting of Hyperlinks
Aug 23, 2016
Jamie Lester discusses the dangers of missing court deadlines in The Barrister
Jul 25, 2016
Insolvency practice: changes to look out for
May 09, 2016
Controlling the Mastermind
Apr 22, 2016
Court of Appeal considers scope of all reasonable endeavours and good faith obligations

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)

WARNING: Website falsely claiming to be Hunters Law

4 March 2021

The website 'hunterslawllp.com' is operating, falsely claiming to be Hunters Law. This website has been created to mirror the genuine site, although contact details including telephone number and email addresses have been changed, and the SRA verification badge does not work.

We have also been made aware of a series of faxes circulating, purporting to come from ‘barrister’ Dominik Opalinski, advising of an unclaimed inheritance of $16.95M, which feature the same website address. Dominik is a genuine partner of the firm, but is not a barrister.

We have reported this to the SRA, and contacted the website domain hosts to request its urgent removal. If you receive correspondence of a similar nature to that described, please contact us directly by reliable and established means.