ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 1: WELL – THIS IS ALL A BIT BONKERS REALLY

October 28, 2022 · by · in Appeals, Costs, Proportionality

The first point that has to be made about the decision  in Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387  relates to economics. The argument that took four days in the Court of Appeal was over a small sum of money.

THE DISPUTE

The dispute was about £385.40.

THE COSTS

In the first instance decision before Mr Justice Lavender, the judge observed “According to their statements of costs, the Claimant and the Defendant have spent £52,575.63 and £35,139.70 respectively on this appeal. That is a total of £87,715.53, which is over 225 times the amount of £385.50 originally at issue.”

THE APPEAL

We don’t have figures for the appeal. However we do know that there were three KCs and three juniors involved over a four day period in the court of Appeal.  It would be interesting to speculate as to the multiple of the difference between the sums in dispute and total costs now.

THE CLIENT’S LIABILITY FOR COSTS

It would also be interesting to see how the issue in relation to Ms Belsner’s liability to pay costs is dealt with.    In the case that immediately followed Belsner,  Karatysz v SGI Legal LLP [2022] EWCA Civ 1388, the Master of the Rolls observed:-

“The Client allowed checkmylegalfees.com to bring this costly case on her behalf, when she had almost nothing to gain. As Lavender J demonstrated at [42], she recovered £177.50 before DJ Bellamy, which was all that was really at issue except massive sums by way of costs.”

I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LOT RIDING ON THIS BUT…

There were many, many, similar cases that were awaiting this judgment.  The stakes were high.  However this cannot overturn the fact that many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent arguing about £385.40.