Cost judge/judges meaning

Original news MT Højgaard a/s v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and another [2015] EWCA Civ 407 The parties entered into a contract for the design and installation of offshore wind turbines. Defects arose in the foundations, prompting a dispute over who should bear the cost of remedial works. At first instance, the judge decided the claimant contractor had breached a warranty that the foundations would provide a 20‑year service life, but had not breached other clauses alleged by the defendant employers. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant’s appeal, finding there was no such warranty. The defendants’ cross‑appeal also succeeded, as the claimant had failed to comply with a provision concerning testing of the designs. What was this case about? The dispute centres on a specific design issue of fundamental concern to the various stakeholders involved in the design and construction of offshore wind farms. For context, it is helpful to grasp the technical set‑up—an offshore wind farm is, in...

HSBC European Works Council v HSBC Continental Europe [2024] EAT 104 The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) refused to overturn the Central Arbitration Committee’s (CAC) 2021 determination, holding that HSBC could amend its European Works Council (EWC) agreement and shift operations outside the UK on the UK’s exit from the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA). Judge Akhlaq Choudhury stated that it was, in his view, reasonably clear that the parties had intended that any change arising from an alteration in membership status would likewise lead to revisions to the list of operations. The judgment records that in 2021, a year after the UK formally left the EU, HSBC relocated its central management—and, by extension, its EWC—to Ireland. The EWC contended that the UK unit ought to have been allowed to continue operating. It relied on a Court of Appeal decision which had permitted the works council of the low-cost airline EasyJet to carry on after Brexit, the judgment said...

The advocacy organisation Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) said High Court judge Jonathan Swift’s ruling on 5 June 2025, granting a judicial review of why the government chose not to pay compensation, represented an 'important point in our campaign for justice'. Liz Kendall, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, told MPs in December 2024 that her administration had closely examined a damning Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report from March 2024 on shortcomings in state pension provision. However, she said the government could not defend establishing a compensation programme for the women. Campaigners from the group launched legal proceedings in February 2025 challenging Whitehall’s refusal to compensate the 3.6 million affected women over Whitehall’s decision not to act...

This Practice Note examines what an interim payment on account of costs is, when the court may make such an order, and the presumption that an order will follow where a detailed assessment is anticipated. It also identifies what might constitute a good reason to displace that presumption when costs are to be assessed in detail. In addition, it reviews the relevant case law and considers the position both where costs budgeting has taken place and where it has not. What is an interim payment on account of costs? When the court orders the losing party to pay costs, the receiving party will not obtain payment until costs are agreed or a detailed assessment has concluded, a process that can take a considerable period. The general principle, stated in Mars UK Ltd v Teknowledge (1999), is that a successful party is entitled to their costs and should not be kept waiting for payment. In Grupo Hotelero Urvasco (2013), applying the underlying Mars principle, the judge confirmed that a...

Court of Appeal—professional negligence ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Court of Appeal upheld an appeal in a claim against solicitors, holding that the loss of a chance head of damage was too remote. At first instance, the judge concluded that Lewis Silkin LLP had fallen below the required standard by not advising their client to include a jurisdiction provision in his employment agreement with a franchisee involved in the Indian Premier League’s Twenty20 competition. Because no jurisdiction clause appeared in the contract, when the client later issued proceedings against the franchisee over a severance entitlement, he faced jurisdictional challenges (ultimately dismissed) brought by the franchisee, which postponed his obtaining judgment for £10 million in severance. The client’s case was that, with proper advice on jurisdiction, the contract would have contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On that footing, he said, he would have secured judgment for the severance sum sooner (as there would have been no hold‑ups arising from jurisdiction objections) and...

Practice Note This Practice Note sets out the requirements for applying for an order to obtain information from a judgment debtor—formerly termed an ‘oral examination’—including the criteria for making such an order, the procedure, hearing arrangements, and the steps available if the debtor does not comply. This order assists enforcement rather than constituting an enforcement method. For practitioners contemplating enforcement, a recurring difficulty is limited knowledge of the respondent’s (debtor’s) income or assets. One option is to seek an order compelling the debtor to be questioned about their income, assets and liabilities. The previous expression ‘oral examination’ has been replaced by applications for orders to obtain information from judgment debtors (known as ‘information hearings’), following the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 33.23, which imported the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, Pt 71 into family proceedings (with modifications). Note that an information hearing serves only as an aid to enforcement, not as an enforcement mechanism. It can also lead to cost savings by revealing assets...

Claim No. [ insert claim number ]. [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [ OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [ insert location ] ] ] [ State division ] [ Identify specialist court ] [ Insert location ] DISTRICT REGISTRY OR THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert location ] [ BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST ] ] Before [ The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice OR His Honour Judge OR Her Honour Judge OR Master OR District Judge ] [ insert name ] dated: [ insert date ] between: [ insert name ] Claimant and [ insert name ] Defendant Directions Having considered the allocation questionnaires provided by the parties. [ upon the parties having agreed the directions set out below. AND upon hearing the parties. ] The following is ordered: Allocation [ The matter is allocated to the multi-track. Cost budgeting is dispensed with. OR The matter is allocated to the fast-track. ]... ...