An award of COSTS is NOT intended to provide compensation for loss in the same way as awards of DAMAGES in tort or for breach of contract. In relation to TORT, the purpose of damages is to place the successful claimant, so far as money can achieve, in the position he or she would have been in if he or she had not been injured by the wrongful act. In cases of BREACH OF CONTRACT, the award of damages is aimed at putting the claimant in as good a position as he or she would have been in if the contract had been performed. In contrast to an award of damages, by which the Court is giving effect to a party’s legal right to reparation, an ORDER FOR COSTS is a DISCRETIONARY remedy ( with a statutory basis). The Court has regard to ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES. It is NOT an attempt to restore a party to the position it would have been in if it had not had to litigate to assert its rights. A Costs Order is “very different” from an award of damages. The Court is not addressing loss. The award of costs is not an entitlement. There is an entitlement to reparation of loss. So stated in PROCESS & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD v FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2025) UKSC 36.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 23rd, 2025 at 11:37 am and is filed under Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.