Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> South Coast Shipping Co Ltd v Havant Borough Council [2001] EWHC 9017 (Costs) (21 December 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2001/9017.html
Cite as: [2001] EWHC 9017 (Costs)
[New search] [Help]
This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.
No.16 of 2001
South Coast Shipping Company Ltd v Havant Borough Council
21 December 2001
Mr Justice Pumfrey sitting with Assessors
In this case the Judge considered in detail the impact on detailed assessment proceedings of the European Convention on Human Rights, with particular relevance to the disclosure to the paying party of sensitive material relating to their bill of costs to which privilege attached. The Judge held that on a careful review of the authorities the European cases did not override the longstanding principle of privilege in English law, but he was concerned that the principle that a court should not decide issues after hearing and seeing only one side of the argument was a very powerful one. He indicated that much greater use should be made of Costs Judges and District Judges of paragraph 40.14 of the Costs Practice Direction in relation to the putting of receiving parties to their election as to how they proved particular issues of this nature.
However, on the facts, and because the Costs Judge from whom the appeal was brought had clearly considered all the relevant factors in coming to his decision that there had been no breach of the indemnity principle on the evidence available to him, the Judge dismissed the appeal, saying that to do otherwise would be to generate unfortunate and unnecessary satellite litigation.