One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- CIVIL EVIDENCE: “BARE ASSERTIONS” ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A DISPUTED DEBT NOR WILL “VAGUE AND UNPARTICULARISED” EVIDENCE
- A REMINDER – DOCUMENTS IN AN AGREED BUNDLE ARE ADMISSIBLE AT THE HEARING AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONTENTS.
- MAZUR MATTERS 60: THE REVISED LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE NOTE: SOME KEY POINTS: THIS WILL REQUIRE CLOSER OVERSIGHT OF THE WORK BEING DONE
- AN “EXTERNAL” REPORT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE BUT THE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE ALL KEY MATTERS THEMSELVES..
- THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE AS THE DEFENDANT ASSERTED: THE SCCO REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE
Top Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS 60: THE REVISED LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE NOTE: SOME KEY POINTS: THIS WILL REQUIRE CLOSER OVERSIGHT OF THE WORK BEING DONE
- MAZUR MATTERS 59: REMEMBER THAT MOST OF THIS AROSE BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN'T KNOW (OR APPLY) THE CORRECT RULES AS TO FIXED COSTS
- A REMINDER - DOCUMENTS IN AN AGREED BUNDLE ARE ADMISSIBLE AT THE HEARING AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONTENTS.
- THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE AS THE DEFENDANT ASSERTED: THE SCCO REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS' BILLS
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
From a receiving party pov I am concerned that this judgment tips too far in the paying party’s favour. Cost-only proceedings are incredibly effective at making a paying party get on with it. With no risk of a costs liability or interest, this decision encourages a switched on paying party to ask general questions to present to veneer of genuine enquiry whilst the intention is nothing more than to delay. I have regular tardy opponents who don’t make offers until 6-8 weeks after £5000 bills are served, who are now quoting this case and asking for things that ought to be subject to Pamplin.
In my opinion, a fairer way to deal with prematurity is for the court to look at the matter after the bill of costs has been assessed or agreed. If the bill hasn’t been agreed and therefore it is to be assessed then the proceedings were not premature. If the bill is agreed the day after proceedings are issued then they might have been premature.
I am also concerned that this decision coupled with Longman v Feather and Black will encourage defendants to fight stiffly on the costs of negotiation (though Longman does have some holes including the fact that the judge seemed to think you can issue costs-only proceedings to deal with the issue of the costs of the negotiations – which clearly you cannot as the liability to pay costs has not been agreed!)