On 'Proportionate' Costs

20 Pages Posted: 22 Feb 2014

See all articles by Neil H. Andrews

Neil H. Andrews

University of Cambridge - Faculty of Law

Date Written: February 3, 2014


The English costs rules were amended in April 2013 to implement Sir Rupert Jackson’s Costs Inquiry (2010). Proportionality has become (see sections II to IV of this paper) the final determinant when assessing standard basis costs, supplementing but also trumping the pre-existing criteria of necessity (was the relevant item necessary?) and reasonableness (was the item reasonable in amount?). It will be contended in this article that, of the several possible rationales for reducing costs in the name of 'proportionality' (on these rationales see section V), such a reduction is justified only when there is something on the receiving party’s side which has gone procedurally awry, some element of misconduct which warrants a reduction in recoverable costs (section V). And so proportionality should be invoked only when the receiving party has unreasonably conducted the claim in a manner which is too heavy-handed and over-blown, having regard to the case’s scale, or his conduct of the case has been otherwise seriously unsatisfactory.

Keywords: costs of litigation, costs-shifting, litigation 'at proportionate cost', proportionality, disproportionate costs, Jackson reforms, standard basis and indemnity costs

JEL Classification: K4, K40, K41

Suggested Citation

Andrews, Neil H., On 'Proportionate' Costs (February 3, 2014). University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 22/2014. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2399061 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2399061

Neil H. Andrews (Contact Author)

University of Cambridge - Faculty of Law ( email )

10 West Road
Cambridge, CB3 9DZ
United Kingdom

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views