Clause 93 - Award of costs against third parties
Courts Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
We have views about what ought to be written under clause 93 about the awarding of costs
against third parties. In particular, we considered that it was important to insert the words in amendment No. 97. After the word ''serious'' we should insert ''and wilful.'' We also considered that regulations under the subsection
''must provide that a third party costs order shall not be made unless the court considering making the order has
(a) notified the third party that it is considering making a third party costs order against him, and
(b) if the third party so requests, held a hearing to determine whether the third party has been guilty of serious misconduct and whether it is appropriate to make an order against him.''
Amendment No. 99 states that
''Serious misconduct shall be an intentional or reckless act which materially contributes to the delay or abandonment of a trial which thereby causes costs to be incurred.''
Those serious points ought to be taken into account. If costs are to be awarded against a third party, prior notification to that third party is essential. It is part of the way in which our courts have traditionally operated. Costs should not be awarded against a third party unless that person has had the right to be heard. It is a fundamental principle of English justice that those who may be penalised by the courts have the right to put their case. If protection and precautionary wording is inserted, clause 93 will be much fairer.
We feel strongly about those points. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says in response, but many people consider that clause 93 does not give a fair balance and sufficient rights to third parties against whom orders may be made. I can envisage that those involved in the press may have strong views about the matter. When I received representations from organisations such as the Fleet Street Lawyers Society, although I would not necessarily go all the way in supporting their views, I considered that there were points in the submissions that ought at least to be debated. It is on that basis that we tabled the amendments.