When is a Claimant liable for pre-action costs?

News

16/05/2016

 

Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 confers discretion on the court in respect of “the costs of and incidental to all proceedings”. It has long been understood that the reference to costs “of and incidental” to proceedings covers pre-action costs. A recent decision illustrates how the jurisdiction to award pre-action costs works in practice and highlights the difference that issuing a claim form makes.

 

Webb Resolutions Ltd v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd (4 May 2016) concerned an allegation of surveyor’s negligence when valuing a modest residential property in August 2007. The Claimant purchased the mortgage from the original lender and after it had repossessed the property alleged it had suffered a loss of £31,148.04. A claim form was issued on 7 August 2013 to prevent the limitation period expiring but was never served. The Defendant issued an application for its costs, which had largely been incurred pre-issue.

 

In granting the Defendant’s application, Deputy Master Nurse noted three factors (a) the considerable expense the Defendant had been put to, (b) the Claimant had been aware of the disproportionate course it was on (its pre-issue costs exceeded £60,000), and (c) there is a clear difference in section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the CPR once a claim form is issued.

 

The judgement contains a number of helpful references and reminders for parties seeking to recover their pre-action costs, including an endorsement of Tugendhat J.’s observation in Citation plc v Ellis Whittam Ltd [2012] EWHC 764 (QB) that “The requirement that the parties engage in pre-action correspondence was deliberately imposed …with a view to extending the period during which each party would conduct its case on the basis that it was not incurring a liability to pay the other party’s costs if no action was commenced.”

 

Latest News & Events

Kerry Nicholson writes about Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and the implications for secondary victims in cross border cases for the Journal of Personal Injury Law

Kerry analyses Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and the Supreme Court’s attempt to impose coherence on decades of caselaw from McLoughlin, Alcock and Frost through Walters, Shorter and Ronayne. She then asks the hard question for modern travel law practitioners: what, if anything, can claimants do…

Thomas Jones appointed to the Welsh Government’s Panel of Counsel

The Counsel General for Wales and Minister for Delivery has appointed Thomas Jones to the Welsh Government’s B Panel of Counsel. Panel Counsel are appointed to provide specialist advocacy and advisory work for the Welsh Government. Tom’s appointment runs for a period of five years…

The Building Safety Act: 2025 in review

As we hit the ground running in 2026, Daniel Searle comments on selected cases concerning the BSA throughout 2025, with a particular focus on Remediation Orders and Remediation Contribution Orders. Remediation Orders (“ROs”) Monier Road Limited v Nicholas Alexander Blomfield and Other Leaseholders [2025] UKUT…

© Deka Chambers 2026

Search

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)