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…
PART 36 CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: PRE-ISSUE OFFER WAS VALID; EMAIL SERVICE DID NOT NUGATE THE OFFER: DEFENDANT TO BEAR (MOST OF) THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES
There are some interesting discussions and findings in relation to the rules relating to Part 36 offers in the judgment of Vernonique Buehrelen KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Coldunell Ltd v Hotel Management International Ltd [2022] EWHC…
KINGS CHAMBERS COSTS GROUP WEBINAR ON BELSNER: 1st DECEMBER 2022
This webinar by Kings Chambers on the 1st December 2022 gives litigators a chance to consider the practical implications of the Belsner decision. THE PRESENTERS My colleagues Craig Ralph and Andrew Hogan will consider the significance of the Belsner and Karatysz cases,…
COST BITES 36: THE POINT OF A PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT IS TO REIMBURSE THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY IMMEDIATELY
In Tulip Trading Ltd v Ver [2022] EWHC 2970 (Ch) Mrs Justice Falk considered the factors involved when making an interim payment on account of costs. “The point of a payment on account is to provide the successful party with…
“THERE IS NO PORTAL FOR LOW VALUE PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS”: FIXED COSTS DID NOT APPLY
I am grateful to Paul Balen for sending me a case report of a product liability case he was involved in. The judge found that a product liability case is not required to be lodged in the portal. This had…
COST BITES 35: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT SUCCESS FEES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: 20% REDUCED TO 15% BY COSTS JUDGE
The judgment of Costs Judge Brown in MNO v HKC & Anor [2022] EWHC 2919 (SCCO) considers the question of an appropriate success fee between solicitor and client in a personal injury case. The judge did not accept the argument…
THE “OLD” CONDITIONAL FEE SCHEME WAS IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 6:UNINSURED DEFENDANTS NOT SENT TO COVENTRY
Amidst the bustle of recent cases about costs the European Court of Human Rights decision in Coventry v. the United Kingdom – 6016/16 may well be overlooked. The Court found that the “old” system of conditional fee litigation, whereby a defendant was…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 5: WANT TO SEE THE FINAL COURT OF APPEAL ORDER?
The previous post on Belsner indicated that a final order had been made by the Court of Appeal. That order can be seen here BelsnerSEALED ORDER (1) and the text is reproduced below. The interesting aspect of the order is,…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 4: FAIR COSTS AND LEGAL FICTION : PLUS A USEFUL WEBINAR
The latest development in Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 is that the unsuccessful claimant has been ordered to pay £130,000 on account of costs and repay £25,000 that was previously paid to her. However, here I…
ESCAPING FIXED COSTS WEBINAR: IF YOU MISSED IT LIVE YOU CAN SEE IT HERE
I put details of this webinar up in early November. Unfortunately the event reached capacity and some people were not able to view it. However it was recorded and it is now available online here. THE WEBINAR Fixed costs…
DEFENDANT SOLICITOR IN COSTS ASSESSMENT NEED NOT RESPOND TO PART 18 REQUESTS ABOUT PREMIUMS: “THE GENERAL QUESTIONS POSED ARE A PARADIGM EXAMPLE OF A FISHING EXPEDITION”
I am grateful to Nick McDonell from Kain Knight for sending me a copy of the judgment of Costs Judge Rowley in Brown -v- JMW Solicitors LLP [2022] 2848 (SCCO). In that case the judge refused to make an order…
COST BITES 34: INTERLOCUTORY COSTS ORDERS CAN BE MADE AGAINST PARTIES WITH THE PROTECTION OF QOCS (IT IS ENFORCEMENT THAT MAY BE AN ISSUE)
In Atmani & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea & Ors [2022] EWHC 2618 (KB) Senior Master Fontaine considered the costs consequences of the decisions made in her judgment, considered in an earlier post. The Master held that…
COST BITES 33: BUDGETS: PROPORTIONALITY, COUNSEL’S FEES (“STRATOSPHERIC”, OR “ASPIRATIONAL”) THE COST OF EXPERTS AND THE COSTS OF TRIAL
There is a detailed exposition of the principles relating to costs budgeting in the judgment of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith in Various Sam Borrowers v BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 1 Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 2594 (Ch). The judgment…
COST BITES 32 : NON-PARTY COSTS ORDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS: A WORKING EXAMPLE
In OCM Maritime Nile Llc & Anor v Courage Shipping Co & Ors [2022] EWHC 2696 (Comm) Sir Andrew Smith considered, and applied, the principles relating to non-party costs orders against directors. “I infer that the defence of the claims…
COST BITES 31: ASKING THE JUDGE TO DETERMINE COSTS WHEN THE PARTIES HAVE SETTLED ISSUES: YOU MAY NOT GET WHAT YOU WANT…
In Bilta (UK) Ltd & Ors v SVS Securities PLC & Ors (Consequential Matters) [2022] EWHC 1431 (Ch) Mr Justice Marcus Smith considered the issues that arise when the parties have settled a large number of issues in an action,…
COST BITES 30: OTHER PEOPLE’S BUDGETS: NONE OF THESE BUDGETS IS UNREASONABLE OR DISPROPORTIONATE
It is always interesting to look at the figures involved in relation to costs budgeting. We can see an example in the decision of Mr Roger Ter Haar KC in University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Ltd &…
COST BITES 29: THE PRINCIPLES OF BUDGETING CONSIDERING AND APPLIED: 15% REDUCTION TO BUDGET
In Associated Newspapers Ltd v Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd (Cost Budgeting) [2022] EWHC 2767 (TCC) Mr Roger Ter Haar KC considered principles relating to the budgeting process. He reduced a budget by 15% across the board. “In my judgment, the…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 3: THE COMMENTARY: A DOZEN POSTS TO THINK ABOUT
There is no shortage of commentary on the Belsner case. I have rounded up a dozen posts here. Unusually those representing both sides (and the intervenor) have given some commentary. I have set out the links below. TWO…
COST BITES 28: APPEALING AGAINST AN ORDER FOR COSTS: THE MAJOR HURDLE INVOLVED AND THE RELEVANCE OF A NON-PART 36 OFFER TO SETTLE
In TMO Renewables Ltd v Yeo & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1409 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against an order for costs. The case is a reminder of the difficulty in appealing a decision as to costs. Further…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 2: WELL THIS IS ALL A BIT BONKERS REALLY (2): “THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTENTIOUS AND NON-CONTENTIOUS COSTS IS OUTDATED AND ILLOGICAL”
Continuing with the analysis of the judgment in Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 we now look at the decision in relation to whether these were contentious or non-contentious costs. “the distinction between contentious and non-contentious…
ANALYSIS OF BELSNER 1: WELL – THIS IS ALL A BIT BONKERS REALLY
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…
COST BITES 27: WHAT DOES “PROCEEDINGS” MEAN: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS APPEAL IN RELATION TO QOCS AND A MIXED CLAIM
In Achille v Lawn Tennis Association Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1407 the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the word “proceedings” in the costs of a claimant bringing a “mixed claim” for damages. It held that it was…
SECOND COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON COSTS TODAY: A WARNING SHOT FIRED AFTER BELSNER
Fast on the heels of the judgment in Belsner today was the Court of Appeal decision in Karatysz v SGI Legal LLP [2022] EWCA Civ 1388, where a clear warning shot was fired in relation to the practice of seeking…
COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS APPEAL IN BELSNER -V- CAM: DECISION CAN BE FOUND HERE
The Court of Appeal have allowed the appeal in Belsner -v- Cam Legal Services. The judgment [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 can be found here. I will conduct a detailed analysis of the decision in the near future. Here are the…
COST BITES 26: DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT WAS FAR FROM PERFECT BUT DID NOT JUSTIFY AN AWARD OF INDEMNITY COSTS
In Evans v R&V Allgemeine Verischerung AG [2022] EWHC 2688 (KB) HHJ Howells (sitting as a High Court Judge) did not accept the claimant’s argument that the defendant’s conduct of the case was such that indemnity costs should be ordered….
ESCAPING FIXED COSTS: KINGS CHAMBERS WEBINAR: 2nd NOVEMBER 2022
My colleagues Andrew Hogan and Paul Hughes are presenting a webinar on the 2nd November 2022 4 – 5pm on “escaping fixed costs”. The webinar is free. Booking details are available here. NB the live event is now “full”. It…
COST BITES 25: DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT LEADS TO COSTS BEING AWARD ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
Those who write “robust” letters of response to a letter before action may benefit from reading the judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Pisante & Ors v Logothetis & Ors [2022] EWHC 2575 (Comm). The judge held that costs…
COST BITES 24: DEFENDANT SUCCESSFUL IN APPEAL AGAINST PART 7 COSTS IN CASE THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT THE PORTAL
I am grateful to barrister James Miller for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Bird in Lally -v- Butler (27th September 2022). The defendant successfully appealed an order that they were responsible for Part 7 costs rather…
COST BITES 23: CLAIMANT FAILS IN APPLICATION FOR DELIVERY OF A SOLICITOR’S BILL OF COSTS: CHAMBERLAIN BILLS HAD BEEN SENT; A SIGNATURE ON AN EMAIL WAS SUFFICIENT; ELECTRONIC DELIVERY COMPLIED WITH THE SOLICITORS ACT
In Elias v Wallace LLP [2022] EWHC 2574 (SCCO) Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker dismissed the claimant’s application for a delivery of a bill of costs. He found that (i) the bills delivered were “Chamberlain” bills and had sufficient information for…
COST BITES 22: CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENTS TO AVOID PAYING INDEMNITY COSTS FAIL TO FLY
In Optimares SpA v Qatar Airways Group QCSC [2022] EWHC 2507 (Comm) Mr Justice Calver ordered the unsuccessful claimant to pay the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis. The fact that the defendant could have asked for a split trial…
COST BITES 21: RECEIVING PARTY NOT CONFINED TO PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT COSTS WHEN THE BILL SETTLES FOR LESS THAN £75,000: “IT WAS WITHIN THE DEFENDANT’S GIFT TO MAKE A REALISTIC PART 36 OFFER”
In UK Sovereign Investments Ltd v Hussain [2022] EWHC 2390 (SCCO)Deputy Costs Judge Campbell rejected an argument that a receiving party’s costs should be confined to provisional assessment costs when the parties had agreed those costs at £59,000. The case…
COST BITES 20: COURT MAKES A THIRD PARTY COSTS ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MISCONDUCT OF LITIGATION: PARTIES GET THEIR JUST DESSERTS
In Ventures Food Ltd v Little Dessert Shop Limited [2022] EWHC 2437 (Ch) HHJ Richard Williams (sitting as a High Court judge) made a third party costs order on the basis of litigation misconduct by those who controlled a limited…
COST BITES 19: JUDGE EXERCISES DISCRETION TO ALLOW CLAIMANT QOCS PROTECTION IN A “MIXED” CLAIM
In Wokingham Borough Council v Arshad [2022] EWHC 2419 (KB) Mr Justice Bourne considered whether QOCS protection should be applied to a claimant who had brought a claim for personal injury damages, in addition to other claims. The judge held…
COST BITES 18: APPROPRIATE CHARGING RATES WHEN A GRADE C IS CHARGED AT NOTHING: THE NEED FOR A “BLENDED” APPROACH
There are several interesting aspects to the judgment of Mr Justice Miles in Eurohome UK Mortgages 2007-1 Plc v Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch & Anor [2022] EWHC 2408 (Ch). One issue was the appropriate hourly rate when a grade…
COST BITES 17: FAILURE TO ENGAGE WITH CRITICISM OF WITNESS STATEMENT LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS: FAILING TO ENGAGE ON WITNESS STATEMENT ISSUES CAN BE EXPENSIVE
There is another judgment in the case of McKinney Plant & Safety Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board [2022] EWHC 2361 (Ch) Richard Farnhill (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) that is worth noting. The claimant’s failure…
ASSESSMENT OF A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT BILL OF COSTS: THREE IMPORTANT POINTS CONSIDERED: CLAIMANT’S CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITOR STRUCK OUT
In Sweeney v Wise Solicitors Ltd [2022] EWHC 2314 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley struck out a claimant’s application for an an assessment of costs against their former solicitor. The action seeking an assessment of costs was issued out of time…
COST BITES 16: THE CARE NEEDED WHEN QUANTIFYING “COSTS THROWN AWAY”: 45% OF CLAIMED COSTS TO BE PAID ON ACCOUNT
In Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 2024 (Pat) Mrs Justice Joanna Smith considered the amount that should be ordered on account when costs were “thrown away” after an action was adjourned shortly before…
COST BITES 15: DEPARTING FROM THE GUIDELINE RATES FOR SPECIALIST WORK DONE OUTSIDE LONDON
In Lappet Manufacturing Company Ltd & Anor v Rassam & Ors [2022] EWHC 2158 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson allowed a higher hourly rate for a solicitor working outside London. The rate allowed, for a Nottingham firm, was £350 an…
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTOCOL LEADS TO COSTS OF A MEDICAL REPORT NOT BEING RECOVERED
I was informed recently that permission to appeal was refused in the case of Greyson -v- Fuller. I am grateful to Simon Fisher from DWF for sending me a copy of the decision in Glendining -v- McCarthy,* where DDJ Causton…
A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A “DUTY OF GOOD FAITH” TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT
In Candey Ltd v Bosheh & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1103 Lord Justice Coulson rejected an argument that a client, who has entered into a conditional fee agreement with a solicitor, owed a duty of good faith to that solicitor. …
PART 36 & COSTS: DEFENDANT COULD NOT SHOW INJUSTICE WHEN IT ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: “PART 36 IS INTENDED TO BE A TWO-WAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW HIGHWAY”
In Holly Wright (& others) -v- Birmingham City Council District Judge Baldwin (sitting as Regional Costs Judge)* rejected an attempt by a defendant to obtain its costs where it accepted the claimants’ Part 36 offers late. The judge held that…
A COURT, ON A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT, CANNOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF UNDUE INFLUENCE OR ECONOMIC DURESS: DEFENDANT’S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL
In Lisa Jones v Richard Slade And Company Ltd [2022] EWHC 1968 (QB) Mr Justice Johnson overturned a decision that the court, on a Solicitors Act assessment, can determine issues of undue influence or economic duress. The judge held that…
COST BITES 13: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN ACTION: TOO MANY LAWYERS, NO NEED FOR A QC
In Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri [2022] EWHC 1958 (Comm) the court carried out a summary assessment of the defendant’s costs, the grounds for the reductions are instructive. They show the grounds on which costs are reduced on assessment….
COST BITES 12: A DEFENDANT WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO AN APPEAL CAN STILL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THAT APPEAL
In Turner & Ors v Thomas & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1944 (Ch) Mr Justice Zacaroli considered the appropriate principles to be applied as to costs when a defendant was not a party to an appeal made by a co-defendant….
COST BITES 11: INTEREST ON COSTS: JUDGE FINDS IT APPROPRIATE TO BACKDATE INTEREST
In Vitol SA v Genser Energy Ghana Ltd [2022] EWHC 1955 (Comm) Ms Lesley Anderson QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) considered whether interest should be payable on costs from a date before judgment. She held that interest…
COST BITES 10: COURT OF APPEAL UNHAPPY AT £730,000 BILL FOR ONE DAY APPEAL: HOURLY RATES ABOVE GUIDELINES HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED, COUNSEL’S FEES MUST BE REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONATE
In Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA & Ors v Secretariat of State for the Holy See (Costs) [2022] EWCA Civ 1061 the Court of Appeal were concerned about the level of costs being claimed in a one day appeal. The…
COST BITES 9: FARES FAIR: IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS YOU CAN HAVE A “SCORE DRAW” AND EACH SIDE GETS NO COSTS
In United Trade Action Group Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Transport for London & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1026 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that there be no order for costs between the parties in judicial…
COST BITES 8: CENTRAL LONDON HOURLY RATES: THE RATE DEPENDS ON THE LITIGATION NOT THE LITIGATOR
In Brake & Anor v Guy & Ors [2022] EWHC 1911 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge). Considered the appropriate hourly rate to be applied on an application. Although costs were being assessed on an indemnity…
COST BITES 7: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A CLAIMANT HAS TRIED TO HAVE A SECOND BITE OF THE LITIGATION CHERRY
In Tinkler v Esken Ltd (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1802 (Ch) Mr Justice Leech ordered indemnity costs against a claimant who, in essence, attempted to relitigate a case he had lost on previously. “A principal difference between an order for…
You must be logged in to post a comment.