By Gwendoline Davies, Claire Acklam
Anyone involved in the conduct of litigation will be aware that the ‘overriding objective’, at rule 1.1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), requires cases to be dealt with “justly and at proportionate cost”. Unfortunately, the question of what is proportionate continues to cause confusion and dispute. In this latest in our series of articles, Gwendoline and Claire highlight recent key cases which address this important issue.
The claimant in the case of Arjomandkhah v Nasrouallahi was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs and sought to overturn that decision on the basis of proportionality. The Senior Courts Costs Office, on appeal, noted that the court should assess proportionality by reference to the relatively wide factors set out in the CPR.