New (to me at any rate) is the Presidential Guidance Note No 1 of 2015: Wasted Costs and Unreasonable Costs, signed on 18 May 2015. It goes a bit further than Cancino in emphasising the high threshold for wasted costs. Arguably too far:

Even where a hearing has to be adjourned because of an avoidable omission by one party, such as inadequate preparation, it would not normally be appropriate to make an order for costs. Representatives have many demands on their time and are subject to a multitude of pressures, which may lead even in well-managed organisations to occasional lapses. The making of an order for wasted or unreasonable costs should be a very rare event.

Interestingly and rather controversially, a decision to reject a costs application can be made the judge hearing the appeal and application but a decision to make a costs award must be referred to the “Resident Judge” for the hearing centre. What for, one wonders? This contravenes the normal costs rule that summary assessment is carried out by the judge who heard the matter in question.

For more detail, cases, analysis and guidance on quantifying costs, take the full Free Movement costs course including a podcast interview with Jawaid Luqmani (2 CPD) or see my costs ebook: