Information for "Re AH (Costs) (2011) EWCOP 3524"
Basic information
| Display title | Re AH (Costs) [2011] EWCOP 3524 |
| Default sort key | Re AH (Costs) (2011) EWCOP 3524 |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,192 |
| Page ID | 6649 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 1 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
Page protection
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Edit history
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 22:27, 12 January 2012 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 22:32, 26 October 2024 |
| Total number of edits | 5 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Page properties
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The relevant respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the nine applicants in this welfare case: (1) half the costs between issue of proceedings and settlement or final hearing, and (2) full costs of the costs application. The judge concluded: 'The conclusion I have reached in this case represents a partial departure from the general rule that there should be no order for costs. It is a case where there has been no bad faith or flagrant misconduct, but there has been substandard practice and a failure by the public bodies to recognise the weakness of their own cases and the strength of the cases against them. In such circumstances they cannot invoke Rule 157 at the expense of others.' |