Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 AUGUST 2008

The Wasted Costs Jurisdiction: A Review

Following Ridehalgh v Horsefield (1994), the court will make a wasted costs order against a solicitor or barrister in civil proceedings if it can be shown that: the legal representative has acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently; his conduct has caused a party to incur unnecessary costs; or it is just in all the circumstances to order him to compensate the party for the whole or part of those costs.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Clive Brett
Clive Brett
Shao Inn Foster
Shao Inn Foster

Following Ridehalgh v Horsefield (1994), the court will make a wasted costs order against a solicitor or barrister in civil proceedings if it can be shown that: the legal representative has acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently; his conduct has caused a party to incur unnecessary costs; or it is just in all the circumstances to order him to compensate the party for the whole or part of those costs.

This three-stage test is now incorporated in the Practice Direction to Part 48 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court has a discretion to make a wasted costs order, but it will not make such an order unless it considers that all three parts of the test have been met.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from