Costs consequences of discontinuing a claim (CPR 38.6)

A claimant may generally discontinue all or part of a claim at any time by filing and serving a notice of discontinuance. The court's permission is needed only in limited cases, such as where an interim injunction has been granted or an undertaking given (CPR 38.2(2)), and none applies here. The costs consequence is set by CPR 38.6(1): unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom it discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on that defendant. Selby is therefore liable for Whitcombe's costs up to service of the notice. This reflects the fact that discontinuance is treated much like abandoning the claim. The claim is on the multi-track, so the small claims exception in CPR 38.6(3) does not apply.

Why A is wrong: The default rule in CPR 38.6(1) is that the discontinuing claimant pays the defendant's costs, not that each side bears its own.

Why C is wrong: The liability covers costs incurred on or before service of the notice, not costs incurred afterwards.

Why D is wrong: A discontinuing claimant is presumptively the paying party; the defendant is not liable for the claimant's costs.

Why E is wrong: Permission is needed only in the cases listed in CPR 38.2(2), such as where an interim injunction has been granted, and none applies here.