The defendant costs specialists

Naming wrong defendant in CFA

By on Mar 25, 2015 | 1 comment

What are the consequences of naming one party as the opponent in a CFA but then succeeding in the claim against another party?

This is a long-running issue with various non-binding and conflicting decisions on the issue including Brierley v Prescott [2006] EWHC 90062 (Costs), Law v Liverpool City Council [2005] EWHC 90020 (Costs), Scott v Transport for London (2009) (unreported) and Brookes v DC Leisure Management Ltd & Anor [2013] EW Misc 17 (CC).

Deputy Master Friston has recently handed down judgment in another case addressing this issue in Hailey v Assurance Mutuelle Des Motards (SCCO, 2015). Although the facts of the case were rather unusual, the reasoning adopted is of more general application.

One more case to throw into the mix.

    1 Comment

  1. Permission to appeal granted and one would imagine that it will succeed.


    31st March 2015


  1. CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS & SANCTIONS: LINKS TO RECENT ARTICLES AND POSTS | Civil Litigation Brief - […] GWS on Naming wrong defendant in CFA […]
  2. COSTS NOT RECOVERED WHEN DEFENDANT NOT NAMED IN CFA: SENIOR COSTS OFFICE DECISION | Civil Litigation Brief - […] GWS website has a link to a decision of a decision of Deputy Master Friston made in the Senior…

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *