Bank Notes

  • Home
  • News
  • Administration
  • Agency and Mandate
  • Bonds and Notes
  • Cheques and bills
  • Companies
  • Confidentiality
  • Consumer credit
  • Contract
  • Conversion
  • Data Protection
  • Default and demand
  • Documentary credits
  • Fiduciary duties
  • Financial Services Regulation
  • Fraud and economic torts
  • Guarantees and indemnities
  • Hire and asset finance
  • Injunctions
  • Insurance
  • Joint and vicarious liability
  • Limitation
  • Mistake
  • Money Laundering
  • Negligence and Advisory Liability
  • Partnership
  • Procedure
  • Receivership
  • Security
  • Trust and Accessory Liability
  • Unjust enrichment


P - Payment on account of costs


12/5/20

KOZA v KOZA ALTIN ISLETMELERI AS [2020] EWHC 1092 (Ch)

Considers what order should be made as to costs when an applicant obtains an interlocutory injunction on the basis of balance of convenience [10].  On the facts the balance of convenience was significantly against the respondent and the court was likely to be better placed than another judge to decide the question of costs.  The applicant was therefore entitled to the costs of the application which were to be borne by the second respondent alone as he was the “real master of the litigation” [27].  Payment on account of just over 50% was appropriate [45].


2/10/18

CULLIFORD v THORPE [2018] EWHC 2532 (Ch)

The court has power to order payment on account of costs after a costs order has been made [14].


3/2/15

EXCALIBUR VENTURES LLC v TEXAS KEYSTONE INC [2015] EWHC 566 (Comm)

Sets out principles on which the court will award a payment on account of costs [14].  In a case involving litigation on a very substantial scale in which costs had been awarded on the indemnity basis, a payment on account of 80% was ordered.