16/01/09
SCCO 2009 Guideline Rates for summary assessment
The rates for London 3, Bands A and B are presented as ranges following the format of the Guide to The Assessment of Costs. These ranges go some way towards reflecting the wide range of work types transacted in these areas.
Click here for more information
15/12/08
Pursuing a doomed counterclaim
(13th November, 2008)
David Peakman v Linbrooke Services Ltd (2008)
In the substantive case the Appellant had sought the sum of £2,232.40 against the Defendants in respect of pay for work done; damages for breach of contract, etc. The Defendants had contested all the claims and had issued a counterclaim, which was never supported by evidence and not pursued actively at trial. After an 8-day trial it was directed that the Appellant should pay £265.00 plus interest to the Defendants. The judge made no order as to costs. The Appellant appealed the order.
HELD: The counterclaim should never have been brought and should certainly not have been continued to trial. If the counterclaim had not been brought the matter would have remained a Small Claim and would not have been allocated to the Multi-track. The correct order for costs was for the Defendants to pay 50% of the Appellants costs from the date of allocation to the Multi Track
For further information, please see the judgment at: www.bailii.org
Ref:- [2008] EWCA Civ 1239 (Costs)
The Defendants had sought disclosure of a Conditional Fee Agreement between the Claimant and his solicitors. They maintained that this was not a fishing expedition given that over £300,000.00 turned on the level of the success fee. They also sought disclosure of a Counsel’s Opinion referred to in the risk assessment on the grounds that privilege in both had been waived. The CFA was dated 12th June 2006 and was therefore under the new Regulations. The Claimant’s Solicitors refused to disclose either document.
HELD:- The Application for disclosure on the grounds of waiver was dismissed and the Master indicated that whilst he felt that the Defendant’s case was the type of satellite litigation condemned by the Court of Appeal, if the Claimant’s Solicitors had disclosed the CFA in the first place the current proceedings would have been unnecessary.
For further information, please see the judgment at: www.bailii.org
Ref:- [20087] EWHC 90116 (Costs)
14/11/08
Counsel’s fees (4th November 2008)
Sibley & Co. – and – (1) Reachbyte Limited (2) Kris Motor Spares Limited
Mr. Justice Peter Smith, sitting with two Assessors in the High Court of Justice upheld the decision of Deputy Master Hoffman in respect of the disallowing of certain Counsels’ fees on a Detailed Costs Assessment.
Mr. Justice Smith indicated that he felt that no attempt had been made to discuss, let alone fix, the level of Counsel’s fees by the Appellants and that in any event Counsel had never offered a detailed statement of the time spent on the case, nor was it possible from the fee notes supplied to ascertain what exactly had been done.
The Appeal was dismissed
For further information, please see the judgment at: www.bailii.org
Pre-action work had been carried out by a firm of loss adjusters before solicitors had been instructed and were shown in the final Bill of Costs as a disbursement. This item had been allowed on Detailed Assessment but was appealed.
Master Haworth found that this was a simple case of an insurer contracting out … part of its work …. It is routine work, which many insurers up and down the country would undertake in-house. The mere fact that the insurer chose to contract out that work … does not render the costs recoverable.
The Appeal was dismissed
For further information, please see the judgment at: www.bailii.org
Ref:- [2008] EWHC 90114 (Costs)
Where the Applicant’s ATE provider indicated that they would not guarantee the costs of two Respondents who had joined themselves to the proceedings on the basis that the appeal constituted a matter of public interest, it would be an injustice to the Applicant if she was compelled to bear the burden of the other Respondents’ costs of the appeal. It was therefore in the interests of justice that the two Respondents be directed to bear their own costs of the appeal, regardless of its outcome.
For further information, please see the judgment at: www.bailii.org
For your diary (October 2008)
CPR 47th Update – October 2008
The 47th update to the Civil Procedure Rules will be introduces in October 2008. The main amendment would appear to be to Part 6 which is revised with the exception of service out of the jurisdiction. The new rules will be supplemented by practice directions A and B. These amendments will obviously effect other parts of the CPR. Parts 43-47 and the accompanying practice directions are amended to enable costs orders in civil cases where the successful party is represented pro bono. Such costs orders will be directed to a charity prescribed by order made by the Lord Chancellor.
For full details of the forthcoming amendments see: www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin
Termination of retainer – Solicitor and Client Costs (28th July 2008)
Richard Buxton (Solicitors) v Huw Llewelyn Paul Mills-Owens (2008)
The solicitors had terminated a retainer with the client a few days before the hearing because they were unable to agree with the approach the client wished to take. The solicitors had presented a bill for their profit costs and disbursements. A Costs Judge had held that although doomed to failure, the client’s instructions were not improper and the retainer should not have been terminated. Therefore the solicitors were not entitled to their profit costs, although the disbursements were allowed. The solicitors appealed the decision. Mr Justice Mackay found that the Costs Judge’s decision was not wrong indeed it was right [paragraph 38] and dismissed the appeal.
For further information, please see the judgment at: www.lawtel.com
Ref:- [2008] EWHC 1831 (QB)
Reasonable choice of solicitor (25th July 2008)
A v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (2008)
The Appellant had brought a claim against the police, that as a result of wrongful actions he had developed paranoid schizophrenia. A local firm had been instructed to deal with the criminal charges, but a London firm was instructed in respect of the claim against the police. The Deputy Costs Judge found that the Appellant had not acted as a reasonable litigant in instructing solicitors outside his local area and had only allowed rates that would have been charged by an experienced local solicitor. The Appellant appealed the decision, but the Appeal was dismissed as it was found that a reasonable litigant would have instructed a local firm with experience of bringing claims against the police.
For further information, please see the judgment at: www.lawtel.com
Ref:- [2008] EWHC 1658 (Comm)
Date of Judgment:- 17.07.2008
Costs of amending Particulars of Claim (11th July 2008)
Davies & Ors v Jones & Anor : Lidl UK GMBH & Anor v Davies & Ors (2008)
The Respondent had applied, after the expiration of the limitation period to amend the particulars of claim. The Amendment had been allowed and the Respondent had been ordered to pay the Appellant’s costs. The Appellant appealed against the decision to allow the amendment to the particulars of claim and the Respondent appealed against the costs order. Both appeals were dismissed, it being held that the Judge had been correct in allowing the amendment to the particulars of claim and that it was normal for the applicant to pay the costs of an application to amend.
For further information, please see the judgment at: www.lawtel.com
Ref:- No neutral citation number as yet
date of judgment 10.07.2008
The Claimant claimed for injuries sustained when she caught her foot in a depression in the road, tripped and fell. Although the Judge had been right to find that the Claimant’s accident had occurred at a point where pedestrians were likely to cross a road, he had been wrong to apply the standards appropriate to a pavement rather than a carriageway. The standards appropriate to a carriageway were less stringent, and the evidence pointed to the defect not being dangerous.
For further information, please see the judgment at: www.bailii.org
Ref:- [2008] EWHC 1407 (QB)