King v Stiefel

Subject Matter

COSTS — Wasted costs order — Legal representative

[2023] EWHC 453 (Comm), KBD

Cases Cited

Cases cited in: King v Stiefel [2023] EWHC 453 (Comm), KBD

AB v X Crown Court [2009] EWHC 1149 (Admin), QBD

Brown v Bennett (No 2) [2002] 1 WLR 713; [2002] 2 All ER 273, Ch D

Burnford v Automobile Association Developments Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1943, CA

Dempsey (Maurice) v Johnstone (Allan) [2003] EWCA Civ 1134, CA

Harley v McDonald [2001] UKPC 18; [2001] 2 AC 678; [2001] 2 WLR 1749, PC

Hedrich & Anor v Standard Bank London Ltd & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 905, CA

Kagalovsky v Balmore Investment Ltd (No 2) [2015] EWHC 1337 (QB); [2015] CN 807, QBD

King v Kings Solution Group Ltd [2020] EWHC 2861 (Ch), Ch D

King v Stiefel (Note) [2021] EWHC 1045 (Comm); [2022] 1 All ER (Comm) 990, QBD

Lady Archer v Williams [2003] EWHC 3048

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su [2021] EWHC 2702 (Comm), QBD

Locke v Camberwell Health Authority [2002] Lloyds Rep PN 23

McIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1982] AC 529; [1981] 3 WLR 906; [1981] 3 All ER 727, HL(E)

Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27; [2003] 1 AC 120; [2002] 3 WLR 172; [2002] 3 All ER 721; [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 146, HL(E)

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair [2017] EWCA Civ 3; [2017] 1 WLR 2646; [2017] 4 All ER 216; [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 30; [2017] 1 Lloyd's Rep 136; [2017] WLR (D) 18, CA

Ratcliffe Duce & Gammer v Binns [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep PN 12

Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205; [1994] 3 WLR 462; [1994] 3 All ER 848, CA

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Civ 321; [2004] Ch 1; [2003] 3 WLR 841; [2004] 4 All ER 325, CA

The Isaacs Partnership v Umm Al-Jawaby Oil Services Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2539 (QB), QBD

Wall v Lefever [1998] 1 F.C.R. 605

Ward v Hutt [2018] EWHC 77 (Ch); [2018] 1 WLR 1789; [2018] WLR(D) 51, Ch D

Commentary

Hailsham chambers
Wasted Costs in the Commercial Court An Emphatic Decision in Favour of the Respondent Lawyers Case comment

RPC Perspectives
Wasted costs – some comfort for legal professionals Case comment