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…
COST BITES 287: YOU’VE AGREED FOUR LEADING COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST DAY OF THE TRIAL – ONLY TWO OF THEM ARE GETTING PAID AFTER THAT
When the parties agree a phase of a budget this can, on the face of it, have a knock on effect on the related phases. But, as Cab Calloway famously said – that ain’t necessarily so. In the case we…
WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT COULD BE DRAFTED TO “POINT OF NEAR HOMOGENEITY” DID NOT IMPRESS THE COURT (AT THE COSTS BUDGETING STAGE – AND PROBABLY FAR BEYOND…)
Here we look at some interesting observations made about the process of drafting witness statements. The court was budgeting the process and considering an argument that there should be “numerous reviews and peer-reviews” during the process of drafting the statements….
COST (MEGA) BITES 286: AND YOU SAID THAT WITH AN “ADMIRABLY STRAIGHT FACE”: “OVERLAWYERING” CONSIDERED IN AN EXHAUSTING CASE
We are looking at a case that has already been subject to several posts on this site. In the previous decision about budgeting the claimants’ budgets were described as “absurdly high” and the arguments “strains all credulity”. The court is…
THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: EX-SOLDIER FAILS IN HER CASE AND NOW NO LONGER HAS THE PROTECTION OF QOCS
Here we look at a case where the claimant was found to be fundamentally dishonest. The judge commented on the irony of the fact that she had a substantial claim for damages, even without that dishonesty. Nevertheless the evidence of…
COST BITES 285: DOES THE COURT NEED TO VARY THE RECEIVING PARTY’S BUDGET WHEN IT HAS ORDERED THAT COSTS BE PAID ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS?
We are looking again at the award of indemnity costs. The judge ordered that costs be paid to the claimant on the indemnity basis. He then went on to consider whether, given that decision, it was necessary to retrospectively vary…
COST BITES 283: “A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE POINTS OF DISPUTE WERE DISMISSED”: NOT ENOUGH DETAIL, FAILING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN STANDARD AND INDEMNITY BASIS COSTS
We are looking at a different aspect of the case we have already looked at this morning. However the paying party in that case to some extent where the authors of their own misfortune. In particular the judge held that…
THE CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF TOOLBOX SERIES 2: WHERE DO YOU LOOK WHEN FACED WITH AN ARGUMENT ON ASSESSEMENT THAT COSTS SHOULD BE REDUCED BECAUSE OF “PROPORTIONALITY”?
The principles considered here work for both sides. Where does a receiving party look when the paying party wants to reduce costs because of “proportionality”? Where does a paying party look to gain guidance on such issues. I am here…
COST BITES 282: PROPORTIONALITY OF COSTS CONSIDERED AFTER A LINE BY LINE ASSESSMENT: TAKE YOUR SEATS FOR A CASE ABOUT THE ALBERT HALL…
I am grateful to my colleague Paul Hughes for bringing my attention to this decision of the SCCO in relation to proportionality. It is a case where the paying party specifically raised proportionality as a further and specific issue after…
WHICH TRACK IS BEST? THE RULES, CASES AND GUIDANCE: ALLOCATION – SMALL CLAIMS OR FAST TRACK IN HOUSING DISREPAIR CASES: WEBINAR 10th SEPTEMBER 2025
Over the past month or so we have looked at three cases where the question of allocation of housing disrepair cases has been considered. The issue lies between Fast Track and the Small Claims Track. This webinar looks at the…
COST BITES 281: THE CLAIMANTS SUCCEEDED AT TRIAL – ARE THEY ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY COSTS OR SHOULD COSTS BE REDUCED BY 20%?
We are looking at the judge’s consideration of costs issues after a lengthy trial. The claimants had succeeded and the judge considered whether the matter had been conducted in such a way as to justify an order for indemnity costs…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 106: WHEN IS VAT ON LEGAL COSTS RECOVERABLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE ON ASSESSMENT?
Yesterday we looked at a case where a receiving party accidentally included a claim for VAT in a bill of costs. The error was noted, after being queried by the judge, however the judge went on to state ” I…
MEMBER NEWS: “ON DEMAND” CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINARS AVAILABLE TO WATCH AT A TIME AND PLACE TO SUIT YOU: WITH DISCOUNTS FOR CLB MEMBERS
Last week we looked at webinars coming up which may be of interest to CLB readers. CLB members can obtain a discount on these webinars. The same discount applies to webinars which are now available “on demand”. These webinars are…
COST BITES 280: THE PERILS OF INCLUDING A VAT IN A BILL BY MISTAKE: THE COURT WOULD NOT DEPART FROM THE GUIDELINE RATES: NEVERTHELESS £202,000 ALLOWED ON ASSESSMENT FOR A ONE DAY APPEAL
We are looking at a case where the judge summarily assessed costs with no input from the paying party. The receiving party had made a mistake by claiming VAT (something only appreciated when the judge raised the question). There was…
COST BITES 279: COSTS AWARDED IN WHAT IS NORMALLY A “NO COSTS” JURISDICTION: THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)
It is worthwhile taking a look at cases where costs are awarded in cases where there normally would be no inter party order for costs. We look at such a case here, in the First Tier Tribunal. On appeal to…
DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO CHALLENGE COSTS PROVISIONS REFUSED: 21 DAYS WAS A SERIOUS AND SIGNIFICANT BREACH AND THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON FOR IT
Here we are looking at a case where the court refused the defendant’s application to extend time when the defendant wanted to challenge the argument that costs were capped. It was held that the defendant’s delay of 21 days was…
ATTENDANCE NOTES IN CIVIL LITIGATION 2025: WEBINAR 15th SEPTEMBER 2025
There have been at least three cases over the previous few months where attendance notes taken by solicitors have played a significant part in the outcome of a case, appeal or application. These notes protected a solicitor against complaints of…
COST BITES 278: HOURLY RATES OF £685(GRADE A) AND £420 (GRADE C) ALLOWED: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT IN ACTION
One of the aims of this series is to look at how costs awards are being made in practice. What is happening “on the ground” is important, if not essential, knowledge for working litigators. Here we look at a summary…
COST BITES 277: WHEN A CLIENT CHALLENGES A SOLICITOR’S BILL BUT IS OUTSIDE THE TIME PERIODS FOR CHALLENGE IN THE SOLICITORS ACT: THE RESIDUAL ISSUE OF COSTS BEING REASONABLE AND THE COMMON LAW ASSESSMENT
Here we are looking at a case that reminds us that a client’s ability to challenge the reasonableness of solicitor’s costs can go outside the Solicitors Act. Even when the time for challenging the bill has passed the court can…
COST BITES 276 : A SUMMARY ASSESMENT IN ACTION: COSTS AFTER AN ARGUMENT ABOUT COSTS… THE COURT WOULD NOT IMPOSE A COSTS CAP – LOWER THAN THE FIGURE ARGUED FOR ON APPEAL
Here we are looking a a summary assessment of costs following an appeal that was all about costs. The are a number of issues of interest here: the hourly rates, time spent and use of Leading Counsel are considered. Further…
COST BITES 275: APPELLANT SUCCESSFUL IN PUTTING LOCAL AUTHORITY RECEIVING PARTIES TO THEIR ELECTION IN RELATION TO CCFAS
It may be a matter of comment when the suspicion arises that the costs of arguing about costs exceeds the initial costs in dispute. I suspect that may be the case in many cases in this series (indeed people have…
MEMBER NEWS: DISCOUNTS FOR MEMBERS ON THE CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF SERIES OF WEBINARS
There are a series of webinars coming up which cover many of the key aspects we look at on this site. Members who subscribe to the site can now obtain a discount on each of the webinars, with further discounts…
You must be logged in to post a comment.