Hollins v Russell

In complex appellate litigation warranting full investigation, unsuccessful arguments should not lead to an issue-based reduction in costs unless the points were unreasonably taken. Costs should be considered as a whole. The court may award costs throughout, order a specified payment on account, and direct detailed assessment of the balance. On reconsideration of alleged errors in an earlier judgment, the court may confirm that no mistake occurred and leave the judgment unchanged.

The Court of Appeal considered costs in Hollins v Russell, an appeal from Oldham County Court before Judge Tetlow and District Judge Simpson. The decision was given with five related appeals. The central issues were whether the complexity of the litigation justified a reduction for unsuccessful arguments, the appropriate order for costs, and the amount to be paid on account pending detailed assessment.

1. Approach to costs. The court treated the matter as a whole. The case was highly complex and warranted full investigation by the Court of Appeal. Costs relating to unsuccessful arguments should therefore not be disallowed on an issue basis unless the points had been unreasonably taken.
2. Order in Hollins v Russell. The claimant was entitled to his costs throughout. He was awarded £7,500 on account of costs, with the balance to be dealt with on detailed assessment.
3. Alleged error in the judgment. After receiving representations that paragraphs 127 and 128 contained a mistake, the court reconsidered the issue. It remained clear that no mistake had been made and declined to rewrite the judgment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from Oldham County Court, before Judge Tetlow and District Judge Simpson, the court determined the costs order in Hollins v Russell under [2003] EWCA Civ 974.