COST BITES 71: POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE NON-COMPLIANT: PAYING PARTIES RAISING OBJECTIONS HAVE TO USE THEIR JUDGMENT

COST BITES 71: POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE NON-COMPLIANT: PAYING PARTIES RAISING OBJECTIONS HAVE TO USE THEIR JUDGMENT

I am grateful to Kain Knight Costs Lawyers for drawing my attention to the judgment of HHJ Gosnell in O’Sullivan v Holmes and Hills LLP [2023] EWHC 508 (KB).  The judge allowed an appeal by a solicitor in a solicitor…

WHAT IS THE BEST COSTS ADVICE YOU CAN GIVE TO A YOUNG LAWYER? THE ENTRIES

What single piece of Advice on costs would you give to a young lawyer to stand them in good stead throughout their career?  This was the question asked in the contest started last month.  The contest has a prize generously…

A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR LITIGANTS: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PAY £17,500 IN COSTS IN A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK CASE

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…

COST BITES 42: INDEMNITY COSTS, CONDUCT AND CORRECTING MISTAKES:  PROVIDING SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON ASSESSMENT IS ESSENTIAL

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…

COST BITES 41: PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON COSTS - CONSIDERED BUT REFUSED

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…

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

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…

WHEN THE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO BEAT THE CLAIMANTS' PART 36 OFFER, BUT MONEY IS NOT DUE IMMEDIATELY: WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

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…

COST BITES 40: NO ONE GETS THE COSTS OF AN AMENDMENT (WHICH WERE FAR TOO HIGH ANYWAY)

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…

QOCS PROTECTION APPLIED TO THE PERIOD BEFORE THE CLAIM WAS AMENDED TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

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…

CLAIMANT'S LATE ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER DID NOT PERMIT DEFENDANT TO SET OFFCOSTS AGAINST DAMAGES: QOCS PRINCIPLES REIGN SUPREME

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

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…

WHEN COSTS INCURRED AT A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ARE ORDERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT: DON'T ALWAYS ASSUME IT WILL BE "COSTS IN THE CASE"

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…