SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAL AND TO EXTEND TIME: THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK PERMISSION CAN EASILY BE MISSED: SOMETHING FOR WOULD BE APPELLANTS TO WATCH OUT FOR
The circumstances in which a judge at first instance can grant permission to appeal from their own decision are circumscribed by the rules. Permission can only be given at the hearing itself, or any adjournment thereof. The same applies to…
SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? (2): THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED
We continue with the consideration of the recent case in which a claimant applied for permission to withdraw a Part 36 offer. The judge also considered the relevant rules and case law in detail. (You need the court’s permission to…
MAZUR MATTERS 25: WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL MAZUR MAKE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS?(2) : HOW ABOUT – “A LITTLE AND POSSIBLY QUITE A LOT”?
The commentary on the implications of the Mazur case continues apace. In particular there has been much discussion about whether it affects liability to pay costs. LinkedIn contains reports that “Mazur” issues are already being raised in Points of Dispute. …
COST BITES 300: THE SERIES TO DATE: IT STARTED WITH A “BOUTIQUE FIRM”, YESTERDAY IT WAS ABOUT CONDUCT, AND IS UNLIKELY TO END SOON…
This series started in July 2022. I wanted to make sure that we got to look at the “smaller” issues in relation to costs as well as major decisions. Those “incidental” issues, summary assessments, judicial commentary and the like can…
COST BITES 299: PUTTING FORWARD A OVER-LARGE BILL IN NEGOTATIONS ON COSTS: SHOULD THIS LEAD TO THE BILL BEING REDUCED BY 75%?
It is not unusual for a receiving party to make an offer on costs before detailed assessment proceedings begin, indeed this is a normal practice. Here the court considered the question of whether serving a draft bill in negotiations that…
COST BITES 298: SHOULD THE DEFENDANT PAY ALL THE COSTS WHEN THE CLAIMANT DISCONTINUED AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS
We are looking here at an issue relating to a defendant’s liability to pay the costs of other defendants against whom no order for costs was made. Was the “paying” defendant also liable to pay the costs that the claimant…
COST BITES 297: THE NATURE OF COSTS CONSIDERED IN THE SUPREME COURT – WHICH GOES BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES: “THE EXPRESSION”LEGAL COSTS” HAS A RESTRICTED MEANING”: COSTS HAD TO BE PAID IN STERLING
It is very unusual for issues relating to costs to reach the Supreme Court. There was such a case yesterday. The Court considered whether a paying party was liable to pay costs in sterling or the domestic currency of the…
SENIOR COURT COSTS OFFICE GUIDE 2025: NEW EDITION PUBLISHED YESTERDAY
A new edition of the Senior Court Costs Office Guide was published yesterday. Here we provide the link and have a look at one issue relating to “representation”. (“Hot off the press is a term that is difficult to apply…
SHOULD COSTS BE DISAPPLIED IN A “MIXED” CASE WHERE PART OF A CLAIM HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT? A DECISION ON APPEAL
What order for costs should the court make in a “mixed” claim when part of the claim is struck out but a personal injury claim continues. That was the question considered in the appeal we are looking at here. In…
MAZUR MATTERS 23: THIS ISSUE GOES BACK TO 1729: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE RIGHT TO “CONDUCT LITIGATION”: THIS WILL HELP CONTEMPORARY DEBATE
Some of the commentary on the Mazur issues suggests that the problem occurs because of a “rogue” definition contained in a schedule to the Legal Services Act 2007. In fact there have been statutory provisions on this issue since (at least) 1729. …
GIVING ACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES: ANOTHER REMINDER OF THEIR IMPORTANCE: “PARTIES MUST BE REALISTIC AND GIVE EARLY AND ACCURATE ASSESSMENTS”
This is not the first time this blog has looked at judicial criticisms of inadequate time estimates. On this occasion it was in relation to unrealistic reading time. This provides an opportunity to revisit the guidance given in relation to…
MAZUR MATTERS 22: USEFUL LINKS: GUIDANCE FROM THE SRA (IN 2022) – WHICH SAID EXACTLY WHAT MAZUR SAID: A SITUATION HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT…
Here we look at guidance given by the SRA in November 2022. The one thing that the SRA can point to is the fact that this guidance said, in clear terms, precisely what was said in Mazur about who can…
MAZUR MATTERS 21: WHEN AN INSURER GIVES OUT DETAILED ADVICE THEN WE SHOULD ALL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION …
There is a growing amount of guidance on practical means for lawyers to deal with the Mazur decision. Links have been provided in earlier posts. However this guidance, in particular, is of some considerable significance. A major insurer has provided…
COST BITES 296: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS APPELLANTS’ APPLICATION FOR A COSTS CAP: CAN THE LITIGATING TENANTS PUSH THE COSTS RISKS ONTO THE NON-LITIGANTS?
Here we are looking at a Court of Appeal decision in relation to the costs capping on an appeal. It was common ground that the Court had the power to order a costs cap if so minded. However the practical…
EXPERT WATCH 20: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHEN THE PARTIES CANNOT AGREE INSTRUCTIONS TO A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT
Here we are looking at a case where there was an issue as to the instructions given, or to be given, to a single joint expert. The judge set out the basis upon which such experts are instructed and the…
COST BITES 295 : PART 36 OFFER BEATEN: SHOULD THE AWARD OF INDEMNITY COSTS LEAD TO 100% OF THE BUDGET BEING ORDERED AS AN INTERIM PAYMENT?
There have been several cases recently where the court has considered the issues relating to awarding interim costs after a party has been successful at trial and beaten their own Part 36 offer. We look at another decision on this…
SHOULD A COURT STRIKE AN ACTION OUT AFTER A TRIAL WHEN THE CLAIMANTS’ CONDUCT HAS BEEN REALLY BAD? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE QUESTION…
Here we are considering an unusual issue about an unusual case. At the end of the evidence the defendants made a submission that the action should be struck out because the claimants conduct had made a fair trial impossible. The…
MAZUR MATTERS 18: WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL MAZUR MAKE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS? HOW ABOUT – ABSOLUTELY NONE…
Much has been written about Mazur, this includes many “column inches” about the implications for inter parties and solicitor and own client costs. However there is some support for the proposition that the fact that an “unauthorised” litigator has not…
PART 36 CASE OF DAY (4): THE AMOUNT OF INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PERCENTAGE?
It is now normal for a successful party to be awarded interim costs at the conclusion of a trial. Here there is consideration of some of the issues in relation to the making of such orders. In particular the court…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (3): SHOULD FAILURE TO MEDIATE PROMPTLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE COSTS ORDER?
We are continuing with our examination of the costs implications of a costs order. Here we look at the defendant’s arguments that the claimant’s failure to respond promptly to an offer to mediate should lead to costs penalties. (The Sounds…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (2): SHOULD THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF A FAILURE TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER APPLY? INTERESTING ISSUES OR ISSUES ON INTEREST?
We continue looking at a High Court decision with some interesting issues in relation to the making of Part 36 offers and the consequences for a party if the offer is not beaten. Here we look at the court’s considerations…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (1): WAS THE OFFER A VALID OFFER? TWO FIELDS, THREE TRACTORS AND £20,000 CAUSED A FURROW IN THE DEFENDANT’S BROWS
Here we are looking at an argument as to whether a Part 36 offer, slightly unusual in form, was a valid Part 36 offer. Later posts will examine many of the other issues relating to costs that were considered in…
MAZUR MATTERS 17: WHAT ABOUT COST LAWYERS? RE-VISITING OLD GROUND: A CASE THAT MAKES USEFUL READING
There are a number of issues that have come up in relation to the impact of the Mazur decision. One of those relates to the activities of cost lawyers. The case law and principles relating to this were considered in…
SOME MORE INFORMATION ON SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE AND PERRIN -v- WALSH: FURTHER STATEMENTS; WARNINGS TO THE EXPERTS AND COSTS
This case was covered in a previous post. There is a useful article on the case by the claimant’s counsel. This covers the orders made in relation to further evidence from the surveillance operatives, the warnings given to the medical…
SHOULD THE DEFENDANT BE ORDERED TO PAY THE CLAIMANT’S COSTS WHEN IT RAN AN UNSUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT AS TO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY? A HIGH COURT DECISION
There has been much debate recently about whether assertions of fundamental dishonesty have been made too readily. This case makes it clear that there may be costs consequences for those who run such arguments but who do not succeed. This…
MAZUR MATTERS 15: COULD BREACHES OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT LEAD TO AN ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT? WHY YOU SHOULDN’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ
I have gently, perhaps too gently, suggested that a great deal of what is being written and said about the impact of Mazur is “unhelpful”. Put more bluntly some of it is inaccurate and misleading. There is much “wishful thinking”…
MAZUR MATTERS 14: ENSURING THAT AN AUTHORISED PERSON HAS “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”: A PRACTICAL GUIDE: WEBINAR ON 31st OCTOBER 2025
As all readers of this blog will now by now The decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) means that solicitors must ensure that an “authorised person” has conduct of litigation. A failure to…
MAZUR MATTERS 12: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 3: JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION
We are continuing with the detailed look at the consequences of the Mazur case. Here we look at that part of a judgment where the court made clear findings as to what did not constitute the conduct of litigation. (Staying outside…
MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 2 (A) : WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
Comment on the implications of the Mazur decision goes on unabated. Some of this is informed commentary, some it is definitely not. On this site we are going to continue the examination of the primary sources of assistance to litigators…
COSTS GROUP AT KINGS CHAMBERS – LOOKING FOR NEW MEMBERS: SEE THE ADVERT HERE
The Costs Group at Kings Chambers are looking for new members to join the happy team. Details are below. THE ADVERT Make your move… Be part of the growth in Costs Litigation As part of our continued growth…
MAZUR RECORDING – NOW AVAILABLE
The webinar on Mazur I did last Friday is now available from Steve Cornforth who kindly arranged it. Details are below. (You can watch the recording on any screen you like – well nearly…) HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH…
THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)
Here we are considering a case that covers issues relating to clinical negligence, the drafting of pleadings and wasted costs. It gives much to think about, particularly for those bringing professional negligence actions. (Choose the right type of doctor before…
PART 36: SHOULD THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION SO THAT THE NORMAL PART 36 PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE “FORMIDABLE OBSTACLE”…
Here we have a case where the court considered the defendant’s argument that the normal provisions of Part 36 should not apply when that defendant had failed to beat a claimant’s Part 36 offer. The burden on a party arguing…
PART 36: THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SEEK CLARIFICATION OF THE OFFER – ITS TERMS WERE CLEAR AND WERE EFFECTIVE
Here we consider a case where a defendant argued that the term of a claimant’s Part 36 offer was not clear and the offer was not, therefore, valid. The defendant had not sought clarification of the offer. (Unluckily for the…
PART 36: WHAT FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED AS TO INCREASED INTEREST WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS ITS OWN OFFER? THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
When a claimant beats their own Part 36 offer they are entitled to additional interest on damages from the “relevant period” (the date of expiry of the offer. Here we have a case where the factors that effect the rate…
MAZUR MATTERS 4: DOES MAZUR COVER ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS? THREE CASES THAT CONSIDER THE ISSUE
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). Here we consider the issue relating to…
COST BITES 294: “A DETAILED ASSESSMENT IS NOT THE FORUM TO RESCUE OR TO ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE EFFECT OF A POORLY WORDED ORDER”: THE COURT WOULD NOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF POTENTIAL FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTYOF THE PRIMARY ACTION ON ASSESSMENT
Here we are looking at an attempt by a paying party defendant to raise issues of conduct, including potential fundamental dishonesty, at the assessment of costs stage. The defendant argued (or attempted to argue) that the costs judge should take…
COST BITES 293: AN EXAMPLE OF AN ASSESSMENT OF A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT (AND COSTS BEING REDUCED) WHEN THE OPPOSING PARTY WAS NOT PRESENT
The periodical reminder that this series is aimed at looking at what goes on “on the ground” in the world of costs, in addition to looking at important developments in case law. It is to allow litigators to gain “a…
MAZUR MATTERS 2: THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY : THE REGULATOR THAT GOT THE LAW WRONG AND IS NOW “PONDERING” WHAT TO DO…
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). One interesting aspect of the case is…
A REMINDER: WEBINAR ON THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAZUR (AND HOW TO AVOID SOLICITORS BREAKING THE CRIMINAL LAW WHEN USING NON-QUALIFIED STAFF): 3rd OCTOBER 2025
The fallout, concern and – dare I say it – recriminations in relation to the decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys continues. There has been a lot of commentary already. This webinar aims to look through the “chatter” by concentrating…
ISSUING AN INJUNCTION MEANS “PROCEEDINGS” ARE UNDERWAY AND THE CLAIMANT HAS TO PAY THE COSTS AFTER IT WAS SET ASIDE: ALLOWING THE CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENTS IN THIS APPEAL WOULD BE AN “AFFRONT TO COMMONSENSE”
Here we look at an ingenious argument about the meaning of “proceedings” and the costs consequences if a claimant has an injunction order set aside. The claimant argued that the nature of the action he pursued did not amount to…
UPDATED VERSION OF THE CHANCERY GUIDE: A USEFUL LINK
The Chancery Guide was updated earlier this month. Here we look at the Practice Note and have a link to the updated Guide itself. FINDING THE LINK The Practice Note that accompanies it gives a link to the Guide itself…
COST BITES 292: AN EXAMPLE OF THE TRIAL PREPARATION AND TRIAL PHASE BEING BUDGETED (OH – AND COUNSEL DOESN’T GET A REFRESHER FOR A JUDICIAL READING DAY)
We continue to look at the case considered in the previous post. Having made the point that the budget is not so much about hourly rates but about the reasonableness and proportionality of the figures as a whole the judge…
COST BITES 291: WHEN BUDGETING THE HOURLY RATES SOUGHT CAN BE TOO HIGH, BUT THE PHASE TOTAL REASONABLE
At the budgeting phase of a case there are often disputes as to the appropriate hourly rates. The response is, usually, that it is not the court’s task on budgeting to set the hourly rates but to consider the reasonableness…
THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAZUR CONSIDERED: HOW NOT TO BREAK THE CRIMINAL LAW BY USING NON-QUALIFIED STAFF… WEBINAR 3rd OCTOBER 2025
I have written three posts on the decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys already. This judgment has profound practical implications for the profession in the way it manages cases and supervises staff. This webinar on the 3rd October 2025…
THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” CASE CONTINUED: WHY THE CIRCUIT JUDGE ERRED AS TO COSTS: FIXED COSTS APPLIED IN ANY EVENT
We are returning to a case we have looked at several times already. This time on the question of costs. Since the appellants were successful the costs order against them was overturned. However it was held that the judge erred…
MORE ABOUT WHO CAN PROPERLY “CONDUCT LITIGATION”: THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY: “TASKS MAY BE DELEGATED BUT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION MAY NOT”
As I said yesterday the matters discussed in the recent judgment about whether a fee earner can conduct litigation may have a widespread impact. It is important that litigators are aware of the views of the Law Society and the…
COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID – FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL’S FEES IN THE EQUATION…
We are continuing with our consideration of Damages-Based Agreements that were found to be unlawful. This time the judge considered the position in relation to counsel’s fees and the Regulations. The judge held that the attempt to charge counsel’s fees…
COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED…)
Today we are looking at a case where the appellants claim to £1.3 million in costs was lost because the Damages-Based Agreements were found to be unlawful and unenforceable. It provides a salutary lesson to all those who are involved…
COST BITES 288: IS IT REALLY GOING TO COST £39,967.50 TO HOLD A MEETING BETWEEN LAWYERS? (AND THERE WILL BE TEN OF THEM…)
Here we are looking at a substantial reduction in a budget. The claimants here sought £39,967.50 for each meeting of the solicitors co-ordinating group litigation. The court was not happy with this… (When you are claiming £39,967.5o a meeting for…
You must be logged in to post a comment.