Question regarding the meaning of sentence re costs in civil litigation settlement.

T

threebedsemi

Registered User
Messages
253
in the following sentence:

'After negotiations between the parties, the matter was settled in the sum of 'whatever' euros together with High Court costs to include reserved and discovery costs'

is the meaning:

High Court costs and reserved and discovery costs are included in the 'whatever'

or

High Court costs and reserved and discovery costs are in addition to the 'whatever'

or

something else?
 
Civil litigation settlements can either be all-in or plus costs.

All-in is the settlement amount and the plaintiff then needs to discharge his own sides costs. Plus costs however is far preferable. Here the defendants will pay the settlement plus the plaintiff's reasonable costs. If there is any shortfall in the plaintiff's own sides costs the plaintiff must discharge the balance.

Your own example is plus costs.
 
Agree with McCrack. This is 'whatever' plus costs.

For all in settlements they usuall say 'whatever inclusive of costs' or 'whatever with no order as to costs'.
 
It wouldn't actually be correct to say "no order as to costs" in the context of settlement. Settlement is a private negotiation between the parties. "No Order" or "costs reserved" are only used in the context of a court (i.e. the Judge will make such a determination on application) decision.

Neither will be used once the matter is determined. The case is either won (plaintiff gets his costs or lost where the plaintiff doesn't get his costs)
 
McCrack said:
It wouldn't actually be correct to say "no order as to costs" in the context of settlement. Settlement is a private negotiation between the parties. "No Order" or "costs reserved" are only used in the context of a court (i.e. the Judge will make such a determination on application) decision.

Neither will be used once the matter is determined. The case is either won (plaintiff gets his costs or lost where the plaintiff doesn't get his costs)
Click to expand...

No. Even if the case is settled at hearing there will be a court order and costs are usually mentioned in some shape of form in the final order of a civil case. Typical settled at hearing order would refer to settlement having been reached - may mention an amount to be paid, or may simply mention that the settlement terms are handed into the court - and then go onto the issue of costs. If they are to be paid (as in the OPs case) it would be mentioned. If not, then it would state so for clarity.

If a case is 'won' by the Plaintiff and there is no specific order as to costs, then the Plaintiff does not get costs. Costs can only be claimed if awarded by the Judge.
 
If the matter has been listed or indeed at hearing then I would agree, otherwise the Court has no jurisdiction (except motions) to award or otherwise costs.

That is what I was referring to in my previous post.

If a case is settled, its up to the parties to agree their costs. If it goes to hearing costs follow the event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top