THIRD PARTY HAD FUNDED THE LITIGATION AND WAS LIABLE TO PAY THE DEFENDANT’S COSTS : A “CHILDISH AND INEFFECTUAL ATTEMPT” TO DECEIVE THE COURT DID NOT PASS MUSTER
It is a well known principle that a third party funder can be liable to pay the costs of an action. However what happens when the funding agreement is dressed up as something else – a car sale for instance? …
DEFENDANT REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND WAS NOT ABLE TO ARGUE ABOUT COSTS (BUT WAS ALLOWED TO ARGUE ABOUT THE WASTED COSTS)
Here we are looking at another aspect of the case we looked at yesterday. Most of the attention in that case relates to the fake cases that the claimant relied upon. However there was criticism of the defendant too. The…
COST BITES 237: “THROUGHOUT HISTORY, LAWYERS HAVE HAD A BAD REPUTATION”: COMMONSENSE AND PROPORTIONALITY CONSIDERED IN THE FAMILY COURTS
Why spend £13,000 to recover a remedy that will only be worth £1,500? That is the issue considered by Deputy District Judge Hodgson [Professor David Hodson OBE KC (Hons)]. An application was made late. The gain to the applicant was…
WHEN CASES RELIED UPON IN WRITTEN ARGUMENTS WERE SIMPLY “FALSE”: WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS
This blog celebrates its 12th anniversary next month. Civil Litigation Brief started as a column in the Solicitors Journal 35 years ago. Over that time many people have helpfully sent me and pointed me me to cases of interest. In…
THE ROLE OF LEADING COUNSEL IN RELATION TO EXPERT REPORTS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: A CLIENT CAN PAY FOR WHAT THEY WANT, BUT THESE COSTS WILL NOT BE RECOVERABLE INTER PARTES
How far should leading counsel, or counsel generally, be involved in the preparation of expert reports and witness statements? One obvious reply is “not at all”, given that the evidence should come from the expert or witness. These issues were…
COST BITES 236 : COSTS BUDGETING CAN BE RETROSPECTIVE : BUDGET CONSIDERED FROM THE DATE OF THE CCMC NOT 11 MONTHS LATER
Can the court ever set a costs budget retrospectively? In this case the judge held that it could, further there were good reasons for doing so in this case. “I do not accept that the Court is unable to…
COST BITES 235: HOW IMPORTANT ARE ESTIMATES WHEN DETERMINING SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS?
Most clients will want to know how much legal work is going to cost them. Most lawyers provide an estimate. The question in this case is how significant is that original estimate in a subsequent solicitor and own client assessment? …
COST BITES 234: A REMINDER THAT A SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT CAN SOMETIMES BE AN EXPENSIVE PROCESS FOR A CLAIMANT
A central aim of this series is to look at what actually happens when costs are assessed. We see an example in the case we are looking at here. It was the claimant’s application for a Solicitors Act assessment of bills…
COST BITES 233: VARDY -v- ROONEY: SOME EXTRA TIME ON THE COSTS ISSUES: CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT DID NOT CROSS THE LINE -NO REDUCTION OF COSTS OF APPEAL
In Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney [2025] EWHC 1027 (KB) Mr Justice Cavanagh made some further costs rulings following the dismissal of the defendant’s appeal on issues relating to costs. Firstly he rejected the defendant’s arguments that the claimant’s costs should be…
COST BITES 232: COSTS JUDGE REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT THERE SHOULD BE A “SHORT CUT” TO APPROVAL OF SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS FROM A PROTECTED PARTY’S DAMAGES
A solicitor who wishes to deduct “solicitor and own client” costs in a case involving a minor or protected party requires approval by the Court. Here we have a case where the claimant’s solicitors argued, robustly, that the current process…
COST BITES 231: THE CLAIMANT’S REASONABLE VALUATION OF THE CASE MEANT IT DID NOT COME WITHIN THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL (HOWEVER THE FACTS OF THE ACCIDENT ITSELF WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN IT OUTSIDE THE PROTOCOL)
In Julie Johnson v Choice Support [2025] EWHC 1020 (SCCO) Deputy Costs Judge Erwin-Jones decided that the claimant’s initial valuation of a case made it reasonable to start it outside the Pre-Action Valuation Protocol for Low Value Claims. There is also an…
COST BITES 230: CLIENT UNSUCCESSFUL IN APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT OF BILLS RENDERED MORE THAN 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO ISSUE: CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENTS GO NOWHERE…
There are numerous cases on this blog where solicitor defendants have encountered major problems, and often come to grief, when faced with applications by clients for solicitor and own client assessments. The judgment of Costs Judge Whalan in Mehta v…
COST BITES 229: THE CORRECT WAY OF CALCULATING A SUCCESS FEE IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE: THE SOLICITOR DOES NOT HAVE AN AUTOMATIC ENTITLEMENT TO 25% OF THE DAMAGES
The calculation of a “success fee” in a personal injury action is a subject that has been the subject of several cases over the years. The issues were considered by District Judge Lumb in SJ (a minor suing by his mother…
COST BITES 228 : DEFENDANT SOLICITOR TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE CLAIMANT ISSUING PROCEEDINGS SEEKING A STATUTE BILL
In Franklin v Your Lawyers Ltd [2025] EWHC 984 (SCCO) Acting Senior Costs Judge Rowley dismissed a defendant solicitor’s argument that it should recover its costs after its former client had issued proceedings seeking the delivery of a statute bill. …
COST BITES 227 : THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ORDER THE CLAIMANT TO PAY 80% OF THE COSTS OF TWO APPLICATIONS: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL
I am grateful to James Packer of Duncan Lewis for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Hill in Mlundira -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 189 (KB), a copy of which…
CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AFTER LATE ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER: EVEN THOUGH FIXED COSTS APPLIED AT THE TIME THE OFFER WAS MADE
I am grateful to barrister Thomas Mason for drawing my attention to the judgment today in Laura Attersley v UK Insurance Limited [2025] EWHC 884 (KB). Mrs Justice Stacey decided that a claimant, who had accepted a Part 36 offer…
“THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK”: COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN COSTS BUDGET WAS SERVED LATE: NOT DUE TO LATENESS BUT BECAUSE OF THE INADEQUATE BUDGET AND EXPLANATIONS GIVEN
In Stephen Herbert Hunt v Oceania Capital Reserves Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 837 (Ch) Master Brightwell refused the second and third defendants application for relief from sanctions in a case where the costs budget was served late. However it…
VARDY -v- ROONEY: CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT IN COSTS ASSESSMENT FAILS TO CROSS THE LINE
In Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 (KB) Mr Justice Cavanagh rejected the claimant’s arguments that the defendant’s solicitors had misconducted themselves improperly and that there should consequently be a disallowance of some of the costs claimed by the…
PART 36: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS RECOVER ADDITIONAL SUMS: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES ARE THERE TO INCENTIVISE OFFERRES TO ACCEPT REASONABLE OFFERS
In Thomas Barry & Anor v Denis Barry [2025] EWHC 819 (KB) Mr Justice Dexter Dias rejected the defendant’s argument that the claimants should not receive an additional amount in circumstances where they had beaten their own Part 36 offers. The…
PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE “RELEVANT PERIOD”: THE HISTORY OF OFFERS IS IMPORTANT
Important issues relating to the construction of Part 36 were considered in detail by Mr Justice Calver in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 838 (Comm). The claimant’s failure to specify the “relevant period”…
COST BITES 226: ARE THE COSTS OF DELEGATION RECOVERABLE? POTENTIALLY – BUT THERE IS A CAVEAT – IT MUST NOT LEAD TO INCREASED COSTS
It is prudent for litigators of every type to take a look at decisions made on the assessment of costs. The fundamental questions “am I going to get paid for doing this?” or “Is my client going to recover the…
COST BITES 225: A PEEK INSIDE THE BUDGETING PROCESS: “PROPORTIONALITY TRUMPS REASONABLENESS”
We get a rare chance to look inside the costs budgeting process in the judgment of Master Brightwell in Atlantic Ways Holding SA v Freetown Terminal Holding Ltd [2025] EWHC 674 (Ch). The rationale behind each budgeting decision is set…
COST BITES 224 : SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: COSTS JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIMANT’S PART 8 ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE PART 7 PROCEEDINGS PENDING: (DEFENDANT’S COSTS DESCRIBED AS “INCREDIBLE)”
In Captivatiun Ltd v Orr Litchfield Solicitors Ltd [2025] EWHC 679 (SCCO) Costs Judge Nagalingam dismissed a client’s application for an assessment of costs under Part 8. The application was made out of time and there were ongoing Part 7…
COST BITES 222: A “RETROSPECTIVE” CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS STILL VALID AND THE PAYING PARTY HAD TO PAY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Singh & Ors v Ingram [2025] EWCA Civ 264 the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that a retrospective conditional fee agreement was invalid. The Court was, to say the least, suspicious of argument that the receiving party’s solicitors…
AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE
I am grateful to Howard Dean of Keoghs, solicitors, for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Morris in Smith -v- Portsmouth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a copy of which is available here. It is a case…
COST BITES 221: A FAILURE TO AGREE TO MEDIATE DID NOT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S COSTS
In Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd (Re Consequential Matters) [2025] EWHC 503 (KB) Mr Justice Constable rejected the claimant’s argument that the successful defendant’s refusal to attend mediation should lead to a reduction in the defendant’s costs. The case…
COST BITES 220: QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO CO-CLAIMANTS WHO DO NOT BRING A CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY: NOR DOES IT APPLY WHEN A CASE IS STRUCK OUT
In BB & Ors v Khayyat & Ors [2025] EWHC 443 (KB) Mr Justice Soole rejected an argument that claimants who had not brought an action for personal injury could have the benefit of QOCS protection. The fact that they…
“A POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY”: ATTEMPTS TO “REOPEN” ISSUES WHEN A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT ARE HARDLY EVER FRUITFUL – AND CAN BE EXPENSIVE
There are a number of cases on this blog where litigants have attempted to “reopen” issues when a draft judgment is sent out to the parties for editorial corrections. We have an example in the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies…
COURT FEES ARE GOING UP SOON: MOJ PRESS RELEASE STATES FEES WILL CHANGE IN EARLY APRIL 2025
A press release from the Ministry of Justice states that Court fees are to increase in early April (but there are some decreases). The release can be found here. “In early April 2025, and subject to parliamentary approval, the…
COST BITES 219: DISBURSEMENTS: WHAT IS A REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONAL INTERPRETER’S FEE? THE COURT MUST “HAVE REGARD TO THE MARKET”
In Santiago v Motor Insurers’ Bureau ( The County Court at Central London, 22nd February 2025,available here Santiago v MIB Final)* HHJ Dight CBE considered the issue of what was a reasonable and proportional interpreter’s fee. The case had been…
WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST FIRM OF SOLICITORS FOR FAILING TO INSTRUCT COUNSEL TO ATTEND A HEARING
In A Father v A Mother [2025] EWHC 364 (Fam) Ms H Markham KC, sitting as Deputy High Court judge, made a wasted costs order against a firm of solicitors. The solicitors had failed to take steps to ensure that…
COST BITES 218: JUNIOR COUNSEL’S FEES NOT RECOVERABLE IN PRIVY COUNCIL CASE WHERE THE CFA WAS NOT LAWFUL
I am grateful to Andrew Roy KC for sending me a copy of the judgment of Costs Judge Rowley in Ruhumatally v The State of Mauritius & Anor, a copy of the judgment is available here Ruhumatally – reasons. The…
IT WAS NOT “UNJUST” FOR THE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY: THE EXISTENCE OF A MAIN CLAIM (WHICH DID NOT SUCCEED) COULD NOT ASSIST THE DEFENDANT
In South Bank Hotel Management Company Ltd v Galliard Hotels Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 3544 (Ch) Mr Justice Richards considered the arguments as whether it was “unjust” for the normal provisions of a Part 36 offer to apply. He…
COST BITES 216: THIS IS A CASE OF HIGH VALUE: HOWEVER THE CLAIMANTS’ COSTS ARE DISPROPORTIONAL AND THE HOURLY RATES ARE EXCESSIVE
This is the first of two posts looking at the costs budgeting judgment of Mr Justice Constable in GS Woodland Court GP 1 Ltd & Anor v RGCM Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 285 (TCC). The judge made observations in…
COST BITES 214: SHOULD THE COURT MAKE AN ORDER FOR COSTS AGAINST A CLAIMANT WHEN THE COSTS BUDGET HAS BEEN GREATLY REDUCED? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED
In Zavorotnii v Malinowski [2025] EWHC 260 (KB) HHJ Karen Walden-Smith considered the arguments as to whether a major reduction in a party’s costs budget should lead to an order for costs being made, rather than an order for costs…
DENTON DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: HOWEVER – CONSIDERING THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE – THE APPLICATION WAS REFUSED
In Bailey & Ors v GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 186 (KB) Mr Justice Bourne considered whether the defendant should have an extension of time. The judge considered whether the “Denton” principles apply to the defendant’s application and if not…
COSTS BITES 214: LAWYERS DO YOU WANT TO WORK FOR NOTHING? THE DEFENDANTS’ DAMAGE BASED AGREEMENTS WERE NOT VALID AND COSTS WERE NOT RECOVERABLE UNDER A COSTS ORDER: WHY SOLICITORS NEED TO THINK ABOUT THEIR RETAINERS CAREFULLY
If ever there was a case that highlighted the need for solicitors to consider the terms of the retainer with care, and know the law relating to Damages Based Agreements in detail, it is the judgment of Costs Judge Brown…
COST BITES 213: HOW DOES THE COURT APPROACH ASSESSMENT WHEN COSTS ARE DEDUCTED FROM THE CLIENT’S DAMAGES
We are returning, for the final post (for the time being at least) to the judgment of Cost Judge Rowley in Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO). The judge considered the question of how the costs should be…
COST BITES 212: ARGUMENTS ABOUT DEDUCTIONS OF COSTS FROM CLIENT’S DAMAGES: THE CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 AND THE SRA CODE OF CONDUCT
We are again returning to the judgment of Cost Judge Rowley in Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO). Here we examine the claimant’s (former client’s) arguments in relation to the deduction of costs breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015…
COST BITES 211: THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LARGE ELEMENTS OF POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE PARTICULARISATION
In St Francis Group 1 Ltd & Ors v Kelly & Anor [2025] EWHC 125 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard struck out large parts of a defendant’s Points of Dispute. The Points of Dispute were inadequately particularised. The judgment contains an…
COST BITES 210: INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTE BILLS: THE CLIENT HAS THE RIGHT TO AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FINAL BILL: “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” CONSIDERED
I am grateful to barrister Thomas Mason for drawing my attention to the judgment of Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in Topalsson GmbH v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2025] EWHC 118 (SCCO). The judge determined that a series of…
EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT WHICH LED TO SOLICITOR’S UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM A PROTECT PARTY’S DAMAGES: JUDGMENT FROM THE SCCO
In AKS v National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd [2025] EWHC 126 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard recounted an extraordinary set of facts where a solicitor had wrongly deducted sums from their client’s damages. The judgment shows that this issue…
COST BITES 209: A CLIENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR’S COSTS WAS THIS A CFA OR A DBA: WAS THE SOLICITOR OBLIGED TO OFFER A DBA?
We are continuing with the examination of the judgment of Cost Judge Rowley Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO). Here the judge considered (and rejected) that claimant’s [former client’s] argument that the CFA entered into with the solicitor was…
COST BITES 208: A CLIENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR’S COSTS IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTION
There is a strange area of litigation and legal costs where issues of proportionality and common sense appear to totally disappear. – that is former client’s challenges to solicitor’s deductions from damages. We see another example in Perrett v Wolferstans…
COST BITES 207: THE BREAKDOWN OF EXPERT FEES WHEN AN AGENCY IS INVOLVED (AGAIN): THE RECEIVING PARTY, APPLES AND PEARS AND AN ELECTION HAS TO BE MADE
In JXX v Archibald [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley considered the – much debated and litigated – issue of whether there needs to be breakdown of an expert’s fee when the expert is instructed through an agency. The…
THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: MAXIMISING COSTS RECOVERY ON AN INTER PARTIES RECOVER – THE LITIGATOR’S ROLE: WEBINAR 23rd JANUARY 2025
Detailed assessment usually takes place after attempts at settlement of costs have failed and there are some major differences between the parties. The webinar uses examples from reported cases to show where failures and omissions by the receiving party has…
COST BITES 206: THE COURT WOULD NOT MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL ORDER FOR COSTS WHEN AN AMENDMENT TO A REPLY ABANDONS AN ALLEGATION OF FRAUD: (ALSO THE DANGERS OF PLEADING FRAUD WITHOUT SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS)
In Packer v Packer [2025] EWHC 27 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered issues of costs after a claimant had amended a Reply to withdraw an allegation of fraud. The judge did not accept the…
MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS – A REVIEW OF THE CASES II: KERINS -V- HEART OF ENGLAND: COSTS REDUCED BY 50%
We are continuing this series looking at issues of misconduct in the assessment process by looking at the decision of District Judge Griffith in Kerins -v- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (Birmingham, 31st July 2015). The claimant’s costs were reduced by…
MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS – A REVIEW OF THE CASES 1: LAHEY -v- PIRELLI TYRES LIMITED
Recent cases on the issue of costs being reduced, or disallowed, due to the conduct of the assessment proceedings have led me to review the cases on this topic. This is the first in a series of posts about the…
THREE WEBINARS ON COSTS TO START OF THE CALENDAR (IF NOT THE FINANCIAL) YEAR
There are three webinars on costs this January of interest to most litigators. The first deals with the summary assessment of costs; the second the role of the litigator in detailed assessments and the third on the topic of deducting…