<?xml version="1.0"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Costs Law Reports</title><link>http://costslawreports.co.uk</link><description>Costs Law Reports provide the only dedicated, authoritative source of costs cases, both civil and criminal, available both in print and online.</description><item><title>R (Public and Commercial Services Union) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] Costs LR 159</title><description>Discontinuance under CPR Part 38; factors to apply when deciding whether to depart from the usual costs order where discontinuance had followed a change of government and the repeal of legislation under judicial review.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/R_Public_and_Commercial_Services_Union_v_The_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department_2026_Costs_LR_159_5590</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/R_Public_and_Commercial_Services_Union_v_The_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department_2026_Costs_LR_159_5590</guid><pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 14:20:10 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>R (Public and Commercial Services Union) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] Costs LR 179</title><description>Costs schedules for summary assessment: consequences of failing to serve Form N260 where an appeal had been concluded by the Court of Appeal in one day.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/R_Public_and_Commercial_Services_Union_v_The_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department_2026_Costs_LR_179_5589</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/R_Public_and_Commercial_Services_Union_v_The_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department_2026_Costs_LR_179_5589</guid><pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 14:15:50 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky and Others [2026] Costs LR 137</title><description>Consequentials: factors to deploy when deciding the reasonable figure to order as a payment on account in very high value commercial litigation.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/JSC_Commercial_Bank_Privatbank_v_Kolomoisky_and_Others_2026_Costs_LR_137_5588</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/JSC_Commercial_Bank_Privatbank_v_Kolomoisky_and_Others_2026_Costs_LR_137_5588</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 15:34:24 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Kaur v Kaur and Others [2026] Costs LR 131</title><description>Discontinuance under CPR Part 38: whether the costs consequences should apply where the claimant had resigned from the case without the consent of the other claimants.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Kaur_v_Kaur_and_Others_2026_Costs_LR_131_5587</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Kaur_v_Kaur_and_Others_2026_Costs_LR_131_5587</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 15:34:06 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Magomedov and Others v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP and Others [2025] Costs LR 1933</title><description>Third party funding: following the conclusion of the proceedings, whether orders should be made for the disclosure of the names of litigation funders in advance of the detailed assessment of the costs of the action.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Magomedov_and_Others_v_TPG_Group_Holdings_SBS_LP_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_1933_5586</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Magomedov_and_Others_v_TPG_Group_Holdings_SBS_LP_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_1933_5586</guid><pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 15:10:32 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Merricks (Class Representative) v Mastercard Inc and Others [2026] Costs LR 101</title><description>Consequentials: appropriate distribution of the settlement pot of £200m between class members, the funder, legal costs and the destination of any unclaimed funds.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Merricks_Class_Representative_v_Mastercard_Inc_and_Others_2026_Costs_LR_101_5585</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Merricks_Class_Representative_v_Mastercard_Inc_and_Others_2026_Costs_LR_101_5585</guid><pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 14:28:08 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Ellis v Ellis and Others [2026] Costs LR 59</title><description>Contentious probate: factors to deploy in determining appropriate costs orders in contentious probate where one executor had remained neutral and the claimant had made a Part 36 offer but had declined an offer to mediate.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Ellis_v_Ellis_and_Others_2026_Costs_LR_59_5584</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Ellis_v_Ellis_and_Others_2026_Costs_LR_59_5584</guid><pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:58:33 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Thomas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] Costs LR 125</title><description>Part 36 offers: whether CPR 36.17(4) was engaged where the claimant had succeeded at the liability trial and subsequently accepted more than his offer before the hearing of the quantum trial.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Thomas_v_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department_2026_Costs_LR_125_5583</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Thomas_v_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department_2026_Costs_LR_125_5583</guid><pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:24:00 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: H (a Child) (Appeal: Costs) [2026] Costs LR 49</title><description>Costs in family proceedings: whether an appeal was a separate category of proceeding and not a “financial remedy proceeding” within the meaning of FPR 28.3, in which case the presumption of no order as to costs would not apply and the court’s discretion could be exercised under FPR 30.11.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Re_H_a_Child_Appeal_Costs_2026_Costs_LR_49_5582</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Re_H_a_Child_Appeal_Costs_2026_Costs_LR_49_5582</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 08:08:56 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Co and Another v Phoenix Ancient Art SA and Others [2026] Costs LR 33</title><description>Security for costs under CPR Part 25: factors to apply in considering whether to order security for costs of an appeal and the reasonableness of the costs of a one-day hearing for making the application.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Qatar_Investment_and_Projects_Development_Holding_Co_and_Another_v_Phoenix_Ancient_Art_SA_and_Others_2026_Costs_LR_33_5581</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Qatar_Investment_and_Projects_Development_Holding_Co_and_Another_v_Phoenix_Ancient_Art_SA_and_Others_2026_Costs_LR_33_5581</guid><pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 15:51:39 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Mazur and Another v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and Others [2025] Costs LR 2007</title><description>Conducting litigation: whether an employee in a firm of solicitors undertaking the conduct of litigation under supervision of an authorised person was permitted to do so under the Legal Services Act 2007 without committing a criminal offence.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Mazur_and_Another_v_Charles_Russell_Speechlys_LLP_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_2007_5580</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Mazur_and_Another_v_Charles_Russell_Speechlys_LLP_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_2007_5580</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:18:17 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>R (Bates) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court and Another [2026] Costs LR 1</title><description>Judicial review; whether the High Court’s general discretion under s 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to award inter partes costs applied to criminal judicial review proceedings.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/R_Bates_v_Highbury_Corner_Magistrates_Court_and_Another_2026_Costs_LR_1_5579</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/R_Bates_v_Highbury_Corner_Magistrates_Court_and_Another_2026_Costs_LR_1_5579</guid><pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:55:17 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Bellhouse and Another v Zurich Insurance plc [2025] Costs LR 1915</title><description>Consequentials: appropriate costs order to make where the defence had not been struck out, but the conduct of the defendant had been out of the norm.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Bellhouse_and_Another_v_Zurich_Insurance_plc_2025_Costs_LR_1915_5578</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Bellhouse_and_Another_v_Zurich_Insurance_plc_2025_Costs_LR_1915_5578</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 23:57:23 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>DSM IP Assets BV and Another v Algal Omega 3 Ltd and Another [2025] Costs LR 1885</title><description>Costs of action: deciding who was the successful party and entitled to the costs in a patent action relating to three patents.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/DSM_IP_Assets_BV_and_Another_v_Algal_Omega_3_Ltd_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1885_5577</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/DSM_IP_Assets_BV_and_Another_v_Algal_Omega_3_Ltd_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1885_5577</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 15:35:46 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Santander UK plc v CCP Graduate School Ltd [2025] Costs LR 1867</title><description>Variation of a costs order: whether the court had jurisdiction to vary a costs order and to stay enforcement of an order for a payment on account pending appeal.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Santander_UK_plc_v_CCP_Graduate_School_Ltd_2025_Costs_LR_1867_5576</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Santander_UK_plc_v_CCP_Graduate_School_Ltd_2025_Costs_LR_1867_5576</guid><pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 22:57:15 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Mahmoud v Glanville and Another [2025] Costs LR 1831</title><description>Family law costs: factors to apply when deciding to make a costs order in proceedings involving children and in favour of a charity under s 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Mahmoud_v_Glanville_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1831_5575</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Mahmoud_v_Glanville_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1831_5575</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 22:44:19 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Cohen and Another v Co-operative Group Ltd and Others [2025] Costs LR 1853</title><description>Summary assessment: factors to apply where the hourly rates and the time spent by the paying party significantly exceeded that claimed by the receiving party.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Cohen_and_Another_v_Co_operative_Group_Ltd_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_1853_5572</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Cohen_and_Another_v_Co_operative_Group_Ltd_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_1853_5572</guid><pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:28:56 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Craft Development SCI v Actis LLP (a Firm) and Others [2025] Costs LR 1785</title><description>Security for costs: whether there had been a change of circumstance justifying a variation of earlier order for security under CPR Part 25.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Craft_Development_SCI_v_Actis_LLP_a_Firm_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_1785_5574</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Craft_Development_SCI_v_Actis_LLP_a_Firm_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_1785_5574</guid><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2026 22:54:15 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Tates (Agents) Ltd and Another v Nicholas and Another [2025] Costs LR 1813</title><description>Third party costs orders: the court could not make a costs order against a person who had never been a party to the principal claim in which the order had been made, nor given notice of the potential non-party costs order.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Tates_Agents_Ltd_and_Another_v_Nicholas_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1813_5573</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Tates_Agents_Ltd_and_Another_v_Nicholas_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1813_5573</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 23:04:40 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Malhotra Leisure Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2025] Costs LR 1771</title><description>Consequentials: whether the costs of action should be awarded on the indemnity basis, meaning that the last approved costs budget would be irrelevant at detailed assessment.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Malhotra_Leisure_Ltd_v_Aviva_Insurance_Ltd_2025_Costs_LR_1771_5571</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Malhotra_Leisure_Ltd_v_Aviva_Insurance_Ltd_2025_Costs_LR_1771_5571</guid><pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2026 14:34:32 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>R (The Badger Trust and Another) v Natural England and Another [2025] Costs LR 1751</title><description>Aarhus convention: factors to take into account upon application to increase the costs caps in proceedings in which the Aarhus Convention 2001 applied.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/R_The_Badger_Trust_and_Another_v_Natural_England_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1751_5570</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/R_The_Badger_Trust_and_Another_v_Natural_England_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1751_5570</guid><pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2026 23:09:19 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Clarke v Guardian News &amp; Media Ltd [2025] Costs LR 1739</title><description>Consequentials: appropriate basis of assessment and level of a payment on account in a failed defamation action.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Clarke_v_Guardian_News_Media_Ltd_2025_Costs_LR_1739_5569</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Clarke_v_Guardian_News_Media_Ltd_2025_Costs_LR_1739_5569</guid><pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2026 23:08:48 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>CRF I Ltd v Banco Nacional De Cuba and Another [2025] Costs LR 1729</title><description>Consequentials: factors to apply in deciding whether there should be an order for an immediate detailed assessment of costs in the absence of earlier agreement.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/CRF_I_Ltd_v_Banco_Nacional_De_Cuba_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1729_5568</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/CRF_I_Ltd_v_Banco_Nacional_De_Cuba_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1729_5568</guid><pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 15:14:24 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Process &amp; Industrial Developments Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria [2025] Costs LR 1719</title><description>Costs and currency conversion: whether an award of costs should be denominated in a particular currency where it had fallen markedly against another currency in which the court had ordered it to be paid.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Process_Industrial_Developments_Ltd_v_The_Federal_Republic_of_Nigeria_2025_Costs_LR_1719_5567</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Process_Industrial_Developments_Ltd_v_The_Federal_Republic_of_Nigeria_2025_Costs_LR_1719_5567</guid><pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 15:14:16 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Spender and Others v FIT Nominee Ltd and Another [2025] Costs LR 1711</title><description>Costs capping orders: an order was refused where costs would be recoverable from various tenants who had chosen not to be involved in an appeal if the landlord successfully defended the appeal.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Spender_and_Others_v_FIT_Nominee_Ltd_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1711_5566</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Spender_and_Others_v_FIT_Nominee_Ltd_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1711_5566</guid><pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:38:01 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Jon Flowith &amp; Partners v Greaves and Others [2025] Costs LR 1703</title><description>Consequentials: principles to apply where costs involved multiple parties and the court was required to apply the principle that an unsuccessful party should not have to pay two sets of costs.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Jon_Flowith_Partners_v_Greaves_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_1703_5565</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Jon_Flowith_Partners_v_Greaves_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_1703_5565</guid><pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:37:52 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Lee and Another v BDB Pitmans LLP and Another [2025] Costs LR 1697</title><description>Consequentials: whether there should be a departure from the usual order that an amending party pay the costs of and occasioned by the amendment.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Lee_and_Another_v_BDB_Pitmans_LLP_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1697_5564</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Lee_and_Another_v_BDB_Pitmans_LLP_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1697_5564</guid><pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 09:47:21 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>White and Others v Uber London Ltd and Others [2025] Costs LR 1689</title><description>Costs budgeting: factors to apply when deciding whether costs budgeting should be ordered in a case pleaded at £340m.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/White_and_Others_v_Uber_London_Ltd_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_1689_5563</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/White_and_Others_v_Uber_London_Ltd_and_Others_2025_Costs_LR_1689_5563</guid><pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 09:47:11 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Potanina v Potanin (No. 2) (Costs) [2025] Costs LR 1681</title><description>Family law costs: whether a costs order in the husband's favour in the Supreme Court could be set off against a costs order of the Court of Appeal in favour of the wife.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Potanina_v_Potanin_No_2_Costs_2025_Costs_LR_1681_5562</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Potanina_v_Potanin_No_2_Costs_2025_Costs_LR_1681_5562</guid><pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 09:47:01 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Right Support Management Ltd v The London Borough of Hillingdon [2025] Costs LR 1669</title><description>Relief from sanctions: factors to take into account on an application for relief following the filing and serving of a costs budget two years and four months late.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Right_Support_Management_Ltd_v_The_London_Borough_of_Hillingdon_2025_Costs_LR_1669_5561</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Right_Support_Management_Ltd_v_The_London_Borough_of_Hillingdon_2025_Costs_LR_1669_5561</guid><pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 09:46:43 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Pharos Offshore Group Ltd v Keynvor Morlift Ltd [2025] Costs LR 1655</title><description>Consequentials: whether interest was payable on the VAT element of the judgment debt and the additional amounts payable under CPR 36.17(4) where the claimant had beaten its own offer.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Pharos_Offshore_Group_Ltd_v_Keynvor_Morlift_Ltd_2025_Costs_LR_1655_5560</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Pharos_Offshore_Group_Ltd_v_Keynvor_Morlift_Ltd_2025_Costs_LR_1655_5560</guid><pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 15:13:02 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Hamblin and Another v Moorwand Ltd and Another [2025] Costs LR 1645</title><description>Consequentials: factors to consider in determining the costs of an appeal and the costs below, and whether Norwich Pharmacal costs were costs of the action or damages.</description><link>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Hamblin_and_Another_v_Moorwand_Ltd_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1645_5559</link><guid>https://costslawreports.co.uk/reports/Hamblin_and_Another_v_Moorwand_Ltd_and_Another_2025_Costs_LR_1645_5559</guid><pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 14:01:13 +0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>