What A Waste: Costs Against An Advocate

The recent Court of Appeal case of Mubarik v. Mubarak [2009] JCA 016 has highlighted, for perhaps the first time in recent years, that where a party considers that the opposition's advocate has inadequately prepared for trial, and has been generally sloppy in his approach to the litigation, then it is entitled to make an application for a wasted costs order personally against that advocate.

The case of Mubarik has an unhappy history and relates to the acrimonious divorce proceedings between the parties. In this instance, Mrs Mubarak made an application firstly, for indemnity costs against Mr Mubarik's unsuccessful appeal, and secondly for an order that Mr Mubarik's advocate should bear part of those costs personally upon an indemnity basis.

Discretion Of The Court

It is trite law that the question of costs lies at the discretion of the court, and that the overriding objective in considering costs is to do justice between the parties (Watkins v. Egglishaw [2002] JLR 1). Historically, in Jersey, costs have only been awarded on an indemnity basis in exceptional circumstances (Muir v. Ann Street...