What does "No order for costs" mean?

[CharlotteWeb]

Hi all,
I'm the plaintiff in a small claim and have mutually agreed with the defendant to ask the court to stay the hearing until 1st June so we can try to work it out between us.

Their solicitor has drafted a consent order for us both to sign and one of the lines says that "it is ordered that there be no order for costs".

I'm not sure what this means. What kind of costs are they referring to?

It means that you will not be pursuing the costs of litigation off each other (i.e. no one will be ordered to pay the other parties legal costs at judgement). I didnt think you could get costs in small claims court anyway, but also I didnt think you could have a lawyer in small claims either.

You each pay your own costs.

It means the court is making no order as to the costs of this part of the case so you both bear your own costs.

Thanks all. That makes sense.I'm now wondering why a "no order for costs" would be added to this particular document as the purpose of it was supposed to just be to ask for the Hearing to be delayed.

Would a court normally give an order for costs at this point in proceedings?

You'd sometimes agree 'costs in the case' which would be paid by the party which ended up with the responsibility for all of the claim's costs.

The 'no order as to costs' relates to the costs of this specific Application / Consent Order to stay (plus the hearing, if the Judge decides to list one to hear the Application) only. It's relatively rare to have a hearing on a consented Application, however, but not totally unheard of.

And yes, sometimes interim Applications are subject to costs orders.

NoWordForFluffy Thank you. I understand now.