 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
The other main principle is that costs orders should be used to deter unwarranted steps
in the proceedings and to compensate a party who has had to incur costs as a result of
the other party taking such steps. This is reflected in O 62 r 7 which materially
provides as follows :-
"(1)
Where in any cause or matter any thing is done or omission is made improperly or
unnecessarily by or on behalf of a party, the Court may direct that any costs to that
party in respect of it shall not be allowed to him and that any costs occasioned by it to
other parties shall be paid by him to them.
(2)
Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Court shall for the purpose of
that paragraph have regard in particular to the following matters, that is to say—
(a)
the omission to do any thing the doing of which would have been calculated to
save costs;
(b)
the doing of any thing calculated to occasion, or in a manner or at a time
calculated to occasion, unnecessary costs;
(c)
any unnecessary delay in the proceedings."
Proposal 51 canvasses a modification of these rules in three main respects, namely,
that :-
(a)
The "follow the event" principle should no longer be dominant, but merely one
principle which may be applied, if appropriate, in a particular case.
(b)
The reasonableness or otherwise of the parties' conduct should be expressly
linked to the "overriding objective" canvassed in Proposal 1 and should be
made the basis for making interlocutory costs orders.
(c)
Costs orders should be made in respect of the parties' conduct before as well as
during the proceedings.
|
 |
|