Remedy

Breach of certain
specified canons inculding
Canon VI(d)
(professional undertaking)
constitutes professional misconduct
and Attorney
shall be subject to any orders
contained in s.12(4) of Legal
Profession Act

Costs which default

caused (only)
Holden v CPS
[held - order
may be made if conduct
involved serious
dereliction of duty
which caused extra
costs to be incurred]

Costs thrown Away

Canon VIII (d)

Section 12(4) Legal Profession

Act
[on hearing complaint,
Commitee may make any such
order as to payment such
sum by way of restitution
as they
consider reasonable

Courts have inherent

jurisdiction to make
wasted cost orders
Myers v Elman

Jurisdiction of Supreme
Court over solicitors
is both PUNITIVE and
COMPENSATORY
(can order Attorney to
pay costs for
own client or opposite
party or both)
R & T Thew v Reeves

Where Attorney acts

in litigation without
authority from clients
may be liable in costs
to opponent
Yonge v Toynbee

Attorney Conduct must be

inexcusable and such
as to merit reproof
(mistake, error or judgement
and mere negligence not
generally sufficient)
Orchard v S.E.E.B
[Held - Power is to be exercised
with great care and only
where clear evidence that
Attorney had allowed
to proceed where
action so inappopriate
that could only be mala fide
or abuse of court's process]

Wasted Costs
Attorney under duty to avoid
useless litigation and
discontinue proceedings
where prospect of success
non existent
CPR Provision allowed
for wasted costs orders
against Attorneys
CPR Rule 64.13

Court's Inherent Jurisdiction

Requirements

as a result of any improper,

unreasonable or negligent act
or omission on the part
of any attorney-at-law or any
employee of such attorney-at-law;
in the light of any act or
omission occurring after
they were incurred, the court
considers it unreasonable to
expect that party to pay

Note - not liable

because pursued
a claim or defence
which was doomed to
fail

Meaning of Words
in Rule 64.13
Improper significant breach of
substantial duty imposed
by professional code
of conduct or by
consensus
of professional opinion
Unreasonable vexatious conduct,
designed to harass
the other side rather
than advance resolution
of the case whether excessive zeal
or improper motive
TEST -whether conduct
permitted reasonable
explanation
Negligent - technical
meaning - failure to act
with competence
reasonably expected of
ordinary members of
profession

Ridehalgh v Horsefield
[order would be made
only where satisfied
"improper,
unreasonable or negligent"
conduct directly caused
wasted cost;further, need
to prevent wasted cost from
becoming a back-door
means of recovering costs
otherwise unrecoverable
against a legally aided or
impoverished litigant]