COST BITES 48: WHERE THE ONLY RELEVANCE OF THE BUDGET IS TO SET AN UPPER LIMIT ON RECOVERABLE COSTS: THE ESCALATING COSTS OF “METAPHORICAL WARFARE”
We are returning to the judgment of Costs Judge Leonard in Reed v Woodward Property Developments Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 36 (SCCO) to look at two other aspects of the case. The first relates to the relevance of the costs…
COST BITES 47: PROVING (OR DISPROVING) THAT THERE WAS A VALID RETAINER: APPORTIONING RECOVERABLE COSTS BETWEEN TWO DEFENDANTS
In Reed v Woodward Property Developments Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 36 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard considered a number of issues. Firstly the court’s approach when there was a dispute as to whether there was a valid retainer. Secondly questions…
A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR LITIGANTS: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PAY £17,500 IN COSTS IN A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK CASE
I am grateful to barrister Ashley Blood-Halvorsen for bringing my attention to the judgment of District Judge Lumb in Reed -v- Boswell (06/12/2022) a copy of which is available here. It is a rare example of costs being awarded against…
WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU IN LAW SCHOOL: A REPRISE : EARLY MORNING STARTS AND LEGAL CHEEK STARTED A SERIES
Back in the dim and distant days of 2017 I wrote a series “What they don’t teach you at law school”. The series also got a lot of input from other lawyers. This seems a good time to reprise the…
COMMENTING ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT – WHEN THE JUDGE HAS ASKED YOU TO: THE CIRCULATION OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT THE END OF THE BEGINNING OF THE LITIGATION BUT THE BEGINNING OF THE END
There have been several cases over the years where judges have commented on the practice of parties attempting to rewrite draft judgments. In Energy Works (Hull) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 3275 (TCC)…
COST BITES 46: NON PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST DIRECTOR OF INSOLVENT COMPANY
In Asprey Capital Ltd v Rediresi Ltd & Anor (Re Non-Party Costs Order) [2023] EWHC 28 (Comm) Patricia Robertson KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) made a non-party costs order against a director of the defendant company. THE…
COST BITES 45: COURT REJECTS DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION THAT CASE INVOLVING A CHILD BE BUDGETED: ACCEPTS CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM PAYMENT ON COSTS – BUT NOT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED
In CXS v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 14 (KB) Master Cook considered issues relating to costs in a case concerning a child where the matter is unlikely to be resolved for many years. The Master rejected…
PROVING THINGS 245: DEFENDANTS FLOORED: THEY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT DISCLOSURE GIVEN INADVERTENTLY “ON THIS QUESTION, THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ME FROM THE DEFENDANTS IS LIMITED AND UNSATISFACTORY”
In Flowcrete UK Ltd & Ors v Vebro Polymers UK Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 22 (Comm) Mr Nigel Cooper KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused the defendants’ application to prevent the claimant from using certain documents that…
NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER AGAINST EXPERT WITNESS SET ASIDE ON APPEAL: THE FACT THAT AN EXPERT’S CONCLUSIONS CAN BE CRITICISED DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THEIR DUTY
I am grateful to barrister Nadia Whittaker for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Sweeting in Robinson -v- Liverpool Hospitals NHS Trust and Mercier [2023] EWHC 21 (KB), a copy of the judgment is available here. …
THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER 2023 – MAXIMISING RECOVERY: WEBINAR 6th APRIL 2023
The recent judgment in Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc [2023] EWHC 9 (SCCO) illustrates the problems that receiving parties can cause for themselves. The claimant’s bill was reduced by 31% (£16.9 million) despite the assessment being on an indemnity…
COST BITES 44: THE COSTS OF ASSESSMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF CONDUCT, ARE PART 36 OFFERS SIGNIFICANT?
We are returning to the judgment of Mrs Justice Stacey in TRX v Southampton Football Club [2022] EWHC 3392 (KB). The judge made some observations in relation to the costs of the assessment process. In particular the interplay of CPR 47.20…
COST BITES 43: CLAIMANT’S COSTS INCURRED BEFORE CFA SIGNED WERE RECOVERABLE
In TRX v Southampton Football Club [2022] EWHC 3392 (KB) Mrs Justice Stacey considered a number of issues relating to costs. One of those was the question of whether pre-CFA costs were recoverable. This required a close consideration of the…
UNDERSTANDING FATAL ACCIDENT LAW: A SERIES OF FIVE WEBINARS THIS YEAR
Together with solicitor Hilary Wetherell we are presenting a series of five seminars on fatal accident law and litigation. These take you through seeing the client for the first time, understanding the law relating to fatal claims, preparing a Schedule,…
COST BITES 42: INDEMNITY COSTS, CONDUCT AND CORRECTING MISTAKES: PROVIDING SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON ASSESSMENT IS ESSENTIAL
In Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc [2023] EWHC 9 (SCCO) Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker held that a claimant was only entitled to 70% of its costs of assessment. There were difficulties in the way that the claimant had…
LAWYERS, FONTS, THE RULES AND SKELETON ARGUMENTS BEING REJECTED: A RECAP
Every so often there are discussions on Twitter about the appropriate fonts for lawyers to use. At times these can be heated discussions, including consideration of whether the use of the word “fonts” is itself appropriate. This led me to…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: KING CRIMSON, KANYE WEST: CONSIDERATION OF THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS): WE ARE IN THE 21st CENTURY NOW
In Declan Colgan Music Ltd v Umg Recordings, Inc [2023] EWHC 4 (Ch) Deputy Master Henderson refused the claimant’s application for permission to call expert evidence in relation to the construction and consequences of an agreement to licence music. There…
COST BITES 41: PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON COSTS – CONSIDERED BUT REFUSED
In Adcock & Ors v Blemain Finance Ltd [2022] EWHC 3280 (SCCO) Costs Judge Whalan considered, and rejected, the claimants’ arguments that they should have pre-judgment interest on costs. “It is clear nonetheless that the incipitur rule constitutes the…
THE COURTS IN AN ERA OF AUSTERITY: BROKEN LIFTS AND BROKEN PROMISES
It would be a pity if the speech of Sir James Munby THE FAMILY COURT IN AN ERA OF AUSTERITY: PROBLEMS AND PRIORITIES is only read by family lawyers. There is much of interest to all litigators. It was a…
A CLEAR WARNING FOR THOSE WHO SIGN WITNESS STATEMENTS AND SOLICITORS WHO SIGN STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE: IT IS NOT A JUNGLE OUT THERE
In Cumbria Zoo Company Ltd v The Zoo Investment Company Ltd [2022] EWHC 3379 (Ch) HHJ Pearce sent out an important message to those who sign witness statements. He also sent out an, arguably more important message, to those solicitors…
DO YOU WANT TO BE A LEGAL BLOGGER? A TRAINING EVENT BY ZOOM – 5th FEBRUARY 2023
The Transparency Project is looking for legal bloggers, training will be provided Full details of the project can be found here. THE NEW INITIATIVE “At the end of January 2023, a new reporting pilot will launch in three courts…
FIRST POST ON PART 36 IN 2023: IT WAS NOT UNJUST FOR THE DEFENDANTS TO BEAR THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO BEAT CLAIMANTS’ PART 36 OFFER
In Von Westenholz & Ors v Gregson & Anor [2022] EWHC 3374 (Ch) Robin Vox, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found that it was not unjust for the defendants to face the normal consequences of failing to beat…
2022 IN REVIEW (IV): CASE OF THE YEAR: PART 36 OFFERS AND MISTAKES
Choosing a case of the year is never easy. There are many significant judgments throughout a year all of which have an impact on civil procedure. However this year I am returning to a decision in January. The decision of…
WHEN THE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO BEAT THE CLAIMANTS’ PART 36 OFFER, BUT MONEY IS NOT DUE IMMEDIATELY: WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?
We are looking again at the judgment of Mr Justice Hildyard in Grant & Ors v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3366 (Ch). Having determined that a valid and effective Part 36 offer had been made by…
2022 IN REVIEW (III): OPENING LINES OF JUDGMENTS 2022: AT HOME AND ABROAD: PADDINGTON, CARNIVALS, RAISING COMMONWEALTHS AND RUINING KINGS
Our annual review continues with the best “opening lines of judgments” for 2022. This year there are a number of strong international contenders. Worries about misguided endeavours The Serious Fraud Office & Anor v Litigation Capital Ltd [2022] EWHC 3053…
2022: IN REVIEW (II): THE QUIRKIER STUFF
Some stranger statistics from the blog this year. Looking at the busiest times, the busiest day, referrers and the countries that visit most (and least). BUSIEST DAY AND TIME The busiest day is Tuesday. The busiest time is 11.00…
PART 36 APPLIED TO COMPLEX OFFER: PART 36 WAS ENGAGED AND THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES FOLLOWED
In Grant & Ors v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3366 (Ch) Mr Justice Hildyard considered whether Part 36 applied to a complex offer made by the applicants. This post looks at the judgment relating to…
2022 IN REVIEW (1) : SOME FACTS AND FIGURES
2022 has been another busy year on this blog. It is always interesting to see what people have been reading. The most recent posts are not always the most read. Instead posts on basic issues, from earlier years, dominate the…
ANOTHER POTENTIAL BREACH OF AN EMBARGO ON A JUDGMENT: JUDGE DECIDES TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION TO INVESTIGATE
The judgment in Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 3343 (KB) shows a variation on the risks of disclosing the contents of an embargoed judgment. The claimant did not disclose the full judgment but various messages on social media could be…
AN ACTION ISSUED ON BEHALF OF AN ESTATE BY SOMEONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF ISSUE IS “A DEAD THING INTO WHICH NO LIFE COULD BE INFUSED”
One search term that regularly leads people to this site is “can I issue on behalf of an estate when I don’t have letters of administration”. There are variations on this, but the central theme is always the same. The…
COST BITES 40: NO ONE GETS THE COSTS OF AN AMENDMENT (WHICH WERE FAR TOO HIGH ANYWAY)
In Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated and Others [2022] CAT 52 the Competition Appeal Tribunal considered the principles relating to the costs of amendments to statements of case after a contested hearing. On the facts of this case…
IF YOU DON’T COMPLY WITH THE RULES RELATING TO WITNESS STATEMENTS YOUR CASE CAN (AND THIS CASE DID) GO DOWN THE DRAIN
In Brendon International Ltd v Water Plus Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3321 (Ch)HHJ Cadwallader (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that numerous elements of the defendant’s witness statements were defective and non-compliant with the rules. The case is…
DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE, AND FOR A FOUR YEAR STAY, REFUSED: JUSTICE IS ACHIEVED BY THE TRIAL DATE BEING MET
In Benford (A Child) v East And North Hertfordshire NHS Trust (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 3263 (KB) Mr Justice Ritchie refused the defendant’s application for an adjournment of a trial date. The defendant argued that medical uncertainty meant that it was…
PROVING THINGS 244 (& COST BITES 39): WHY COSTS LAWYERS HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT PROVING THINGS
We are returning to the decision on Mr Justice Cavanagh in Shepherd & Co Solicitors v Brealey [2022] EWHC 3229 (KB) to consider another aspect of the rules relating to costs. The solicitors were seeking to persuade the court to…
A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY
In Shepherd & Co Solicitors v Brealey [2022] EWHC 3229 (KB) Mr Justice Cavanagh made some observations on the practice of making submissions once a judgment is sent out in draft. This was not an invitation to the parties to…
ANOTHER QOCS AND PART 36 CASE: COURT MAKING ORDER UNDER PART 36 DID NOT LEAD TO QOCS PROTECTION BEING OUSTED
In University Hospitals of Derby & Burton NHS Foundation Trust -v- Harrison [2022] EWCA Civ 1660 * the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that QOCS protection was lost when the court was called upon to make an order…
SHOULD AN ISSUE IN THE REPLY BE IN THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM? A WORKING EXAMPLE
In Griffiths & Anor v Gilbert [2022] EWHC 3122 (TCC) HHJ Sarah Watson considered a pleading issue. Should a point made in a Reply have been pleaded in the Particulars of Claim. She held that, on the facts of that…
QOCS PROTECTION APPLIED TO THE PERIOD BEFORE THE CLAIM WAS AMENDED TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In Pathan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2022] EWHC 3244 (KB) Mr Justice Bourne held that an action could not become subject to QOCS part way through. If the claim was a personal injury claim at trial then…
IF YOU DON’T SAY WHO YOU ARE THEN YOU CANNOT ARGUE POINTS AT A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
In Wright v Person Or Persons Unknown Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website bitcoin.org [2022] EWHC 2982 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley held that if a paying party wanted to take part in a detailed assessment of costs…
WHEN THE WORDING OF THE CLAIM FORM COMES UNDER CLOSE SCRUTINY: SOMETHING TO REMEMBER
The precise wording of the claim form came under close scrutiny in the judgment of Mr Justice Trower in Honda Group-UK Pension Scheme Trustee Ltd & Ors v Mercer Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3197 (Ch). It is one of…
CLAIMANT’S LATE ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER DID NOT PERMIT DEFENDANT TO SET OFFCOSTS AGAINST DAMAGES: QOCS PRINCIPLES REIGN SUPREME
In Chappell v Mrozek [2022] EWHC 3147 (KB) Master Stevens rejected the defendant’s argument that the defendant’s entitlement to costs, arising from late acceptance of a Part 36 offer, could be enforced from the claimant’s damages. The judgment examines the…
TIME FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITOR’S BILL HAD NOT PASSED: CLAIMANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED AND ASSESSMENT TO PROCEED
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL SEE Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 844 In Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Ltd [2022] EWHC 3199 (KB) Mr Justice Bourne allowed an appeal on the…
COST BITES 38: THE COSTS OF AN APPEAL SHOULD BE PAID BY THE LOSING PARTIES
In Frasers Group Plc v The Official Receiver & Ors [2022] EWHC 3184 (Ch) Sir Paul Morgan (sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division) held that the appropriate order, following a successful appeal, was for the respondents to the…
WHEN COSTS INCURRED AT A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ARE ORDERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT: DON’T ALWAYS ASSUME IT WILL BE “COSTS IN THE CASE”
It may be imprudent to assume that arguments that take place at the case management stage will always be subject to an order for costs in the case. In University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Ltd & Anor…
SEDLEY’S LAWS IN THE MODERN AGE: ELECTRONIC BUNDLES “SOME OF THE PAGES MUST APPEAR UPSIDE DOWN, PREFERABLY AT SPORADIC INTERVALS”
The post yesterday on Sedley’s Laws of documents led to me to consider how this should be applied in the modern age. More specifically to electronic bundles. These musings led to contributions from the lawyers of Twitter. We clearly have…
BUNDLES: SEDLEY’S LAW REVISITED: HAS MUCH CHANGED OVER THE PAST NINE YEARS?
Nine years after it was first published I am re-visiting a very early post on this blog. Regular readers will know that the issue of trial and hearing bundles have featured regularly over the intervening period. It is not uncommon…
APPLICATION FOR INDEMNITY COSTS CONSIDERED BUT NOT AWARDED: STILL A SIGNIFICANT LESSON FOR LITIGATORS (AND LITIGANTS) HERE
In Tejani v Fitzroy Place Residential Ltd & Ors (Re Costs and Interest) [2022] EWHC 3153 (TCC) Ms Vernonique Buehrlen K.C. (sitting as a High Court Judge) declined an application that an unsuccessful claimant pay the defendants’ costs on the…
COST BITES 37: DRAFTING THE SCHEDULE FOR SUMMARY ASSESSMENT: DEFECTS, DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES
The judgment of Tribunal Judge Amanda Brown KC in Harris v Revenue and Customs (COSTS – complex track application for idemnity costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour – application in response to strike out for failure to meet terms…
APPLICATIONS TO AMEND PLEADINGS SHOULD NORMALLY BE SUPPORTED BY A DRAFT AND WITNESS EVIDENCE AS TO THE MERITS: A RIGHT ROYAL ISSUE
In Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v HM Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria de Borbon y Borbon (Rev1) [2022] EWCA Civ 1595 the Court of Appeal set out the importance of having a draft pleading to hand when seeking permission to amend a statement…
CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE ON DEPUTYSHIP AND COURT OF PROTECTION COSTS: SUCCESSFUL APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT
I am grateful to Daniel Slade from Express Solicitors for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Soole in AAA -v- BBB [2022] EWHC 3103 (KB). It is a case where the claimant was successful in appealing…
PROVING THINGS 243: ITS WITNESSES THAT COUNT IN FINDING PRIMARY FACTS, NOT EXPERTS
The Court of Appeal judgment today in Taylor & Anor v Raspin [2022] EWCA Civ 1613 emphasises the difficulty in appealing findings of fact. The Court also took a little time to point out the limited role of experts in…
You must be logged in to post a comment.