Definition
Interlocutory costs are court costs that arise from procedural proceedings during the intermediate stages of a lawsuit, before the case reaches final judgment. They are distinguished from final costs, which are taxed at the conclusion of the action. Classic examples include costs associated with motions, hearings on preliminary injunctions, discovery disputes, and other contested proceedings that occur while the case remains pending.
The award of interlocutory costs may be made by the court at the time of ruling on the relevant motion or proceeding, or may be reserved for final disposition. When awarded immediately, they are sometimes referred to as costs of the motion. A court may condition further proceedings on the payment of interlocutory costs, particularly where a party has been dilatory or has brought unnecessary motion practice.
---
Common Confusion
Interlocutory costs should not be confused with costs on interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is a distinct procedural vehicle — an appeal taken from a non-final order during the course of litigation. Costs arising from such an appeal may overlap with interlocutory costs conceptually, but appellate costs are governed by separate rules and are taxed by the appellate court, not the trial court. The two concepts share the word "interlocutory" but operate in different procedural registers. Researchers conflating them may find themselves in the wrong procedural framework entirely.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research trap with interlocutory costs is that the term functions as a period label more than a modern operative phrase. Contemporary federal practice and most state practice do not use "interlocutory costs" as a term of art with the frequency that older procedural treatises did. Modern practitioners and courts instead speak of costs "awarded on the motion," costs "to be taxed," or costs subject to Rule 54(d) discretion — without always using the interlocutory modifier. Researchers working in historical sources, particularly equity practice or pre-code pleading materials, will encounter the term regularly; researchers working in modern federal sources may need to translate it into the current vocabulary.
In historical equity practice, interlocutory costs carried particular procedural significance. Courts of equity had robust doctrines governing when costs of intermediate proceedings would be awarded, against whom, and whether payment was a prerequisite to proceeding further. Those doctrines are largely absorbed into modern judicial discretion over costs under Rule 54(d) and analogous state rules, but the underlying logic still informs judicial practice. A researcher tracing the development of a costs dispute should be aware that pre-merger equity authorities are using this term in a technically richer context than a modern gloss might suggest.
Jurisdictional variation in the treatability of interlocutory cost awards also matters. In some jurisdictions, an order awarding or denying interlocutory costs is itself immediately appealable; in others, it is not final and must await the final judgment. This affects how researchers should categorize such orders when reviewing appellate records or docket histories.
Family law litigation is a recurring context. Courts in dissolution, custody, and support proceedings frequently award costs of motions as a litigation management and equity tool, and the concept of interlocutory costs maps directly onto that practice. See family_213 for the interplay of interlocutory orders and appeals in family law.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary and Burrill's Law Dictionary are in precise agreement — both track to the same source, 3 Chitty's General Practice 597, and use nearly identical language. This is not unusual: Burrill frequently traces to the same English procedural authorities as Black's early editions, and for this term the lineage is unambiguous. Neither entry adds doctrinal nuance beyond the structural definition, which reflects the term's relatively mechanical role in procedural taxonomy of the period.
What the historical dictionaries do not capture is the equity dimension. The Chitty citation situates the definition in common law practice, but interlocutory costs had a parallel and sometimes more developed life in equity proceedings, where courts imposed them with greater frequency as a tool of case management. Researchers using Black's or Burrill's as a starting point should supplement with equity practice treatises for a complete picture.
The historical definitions also omit any treatment of how interlocutory costs interact with costs ultimately awarded at final judgment — whether they are merged, separately enforced, or subject to reallocation. Modern courts address these questions under their general costs discretion, but historical practice involved more formalized rules that period treatises address in detail.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Federal courts address the taxation of costs — including costs of motions and intermediate proceedings — under Rule 54(d) and 28 USC 1920, which vest broad discretion in the district court. State practice varies considerably: some states maintain explicit statutory or rule-based provisions for awarding costs on motions; others treat all costs as reserved until final judgment absent a specific order. Researchers should not assume that historical common law or equity rules regarding interlocutory costs map cleanly onto any particular modern jurisdiction.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
civpro_142: Costs and Taxation of Costs — Rule 54(d) and 28 USC 1920 (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia)
civpro_105: Interlocutory Appeals — 28 USC 1292(a) and (b) (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia)
family_213: Family Law — Appeals in Family Law Cases (Interlocutory and Final) (The Law Mind Family Law Encyclopedia)
---