COST BITES 177: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT RECOVERS ONLY 20% OF ITS COSTS (STILL GETS AN INTERIM PAYMENT OF £2 MILLION)
In Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Disclosure and Barring Service [2024] EWHC 2025 (TCC) Mr Justice Constable found that a “successful” claimant who had recovered nearly £3.7 million in damages should only recover 20% of its costs. Both parties had…
COST BITES 176: A WARNING TO ALL WOULD BE INTERVENORS IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT COULD BE COSTLY (£110,000 IN THIS CASE)
In Betta Oceanway Company v SC Tomini Trading SR (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 2068 (Comm) Mr Stephen Hofmeyr KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) held that a person who unsuccessfully sought to intervene in civil proceedings…
PART 36: THE CONSEQUENCES APPLY TO A CLAIMANT’S OFFER EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO CLAIM FOR A MONETARY AWARD
In Rahman v Hassan & Ors (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 2038 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) held that Part 36 applies even when the claim was not, directly, for a monetary award. There was…
COST BITES 175: SOLICITOR’S BILLS WERE NOT INTERIM STATUTE BILLS AND COULD BE ASSESSED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
In the judgment today in Signature Litigation LLP v Ivanishvili [2024] EWCA Civ 901 the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision of Costs Judge Leonard that a series of bills rendered by the appellant solicitors were not interim statute…
A PART 36 OFFER MADE PRE-TRIAL WAS NOT OPEN FOR ACCEPTANCE WHILST QUANTUM WAS BEING ASSESSED: WHEN IS A SPLIT TRIAL NOT A SPLIT TRIAL?
In Wells v Hornshaw & Ors [2024] EWHC 2019 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson rejected a petitioner’s argument that a Part 36 offer remained open for acceptance. There had been a trial after the Part 36 offer had been made. …
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE WAS NOT STAYED BECAUSE IT COULD NOT PAY INTERLOCUTORY COSTS ORDERS: WON’T PAY IS VERY DIFFERENT TO CAN’T PAY
In J Robbins Capital Partners Ltd v Zamsort Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1990 (Comm) Paul Stanley KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) refused the defendants’ application that the action be stayed pending the claimant’s payment of interlocutory…
COST BITES 174: A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY HAS NO SPECIAL STATUS WHEN IT COMES TO COSTS: “HE HAS NOT SUGGESTED THAT, HAD HE WON, HE WOULD NOBLY DECLINE TO ASK FOR HIS COSTS”
We are returning to the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Broom v Aguilar [2024] EWHC 1961 (Ch). The judge rejected an argument that a different order for costs should be made because the respondent/clamant…
A DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO SEEK TO AVOID SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS: IT WON’T WIN YOU ANY HONOURS BUT IT IS NOT WRONG…
In Broom v Aguilar [2024] EWHC 1961 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews rejected an argument that a different costs order should be made because the defendant did not co-operate in relation to service of proceedings upon her. Seeking to avoid service…
COSTS AFTER A CLAIMANT FAILS ON CLAIM FORM POINTS: SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANTS GET (MOST) OF THEIR COSTS
In Wragg & Ors v Opel Automobile GmbH & Ors [2024] EWHC 1909 (KB) Mr Justice Constable considered issues of costs after the claimants had failed on appeal on late service/extensions of time claim form issues. “Doing justice between the…
COST BITES 173: VARYING A COSTS BUDGET “AFTER THE EVENT”: IF THE APPLICATION WAS NOT “PROMPT” THE BUDGET WILL NOT BE VARIED
We are looking again at the decision in Khokan v Nirjhor (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 1873 (KB), this time on the issue of costs budgeting. The judge considered the defendant’s budget in unusual circumstances. The claimant’s case had been struck…
COST BITES 172: CLAIMANT WHOSE CASE WAS STRUCK OUT HAD TO PAY THE DEFENDANT’S COSTS
In Khokan v Nirjhor (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 1873 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill rejected an argument that a claimant, whose case had been struck out due to non compliance with a peremptory order, should then not be liable to pay…
COST BITES 171: DEFENDANT WHO RECEIVED LEGAL AID TO DEFEND CIVIL COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS CAN ONLY RECOVER COSTS AT LEGAL AID RATES
The judgment of Costs Judge Whalan in MBR Acres Ltd & Ors v McGivern [2024] EWHC 1869 (SCCO) highlights an issue that has been on this blog before. A party who obtains legal aid to defendant civil committal proceedings cannot…
COURT MADE PEREMPTORY ORDER THAT CLAIMANT PAY COSTS: ARTICLE 6 RIGHTS NOT INFRINGED
In Khokan v Nirjhor [2024] EWHC 1872 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill granted the defendant’s application for a peremptory order following the claimant’s failure to pay costs ordered against him at an interlocutory hearing. The judge refused the claimant’s application for…
“UNNECESSARILY ARGUMENTATIVE OR WASTEFUL CORRESPONDENCE” NOT COUNTENANCED IN COSTS BUDGETING: “IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO”
The post earlier this morning on “intemperate” comments in court documents and correspondence reminded me that I meant to highlight a particular aspect of the judgment in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB). The judgment highlights that unnecessarily argumentative…
COST BITES 170: IF YOU MAKE AN APPLICATION, HAVE IT HEARD BUT WITHDRAW IT PRIOR TO JUDGMENT THEN YOU ARE PAYING ALL THE COSTS (ALTHOUGH NOT NECESSARILY ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS)
In Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1801 Mrs Justice Joanna Smith considered issues relating to costs where the claimant abandoned her application to amend after the hearing, but prior to judgment. The judge held that the…
“CIVIL LITIGATION IN THE MODERN ERA REQUIRES THE PARTIES TO BEHAVE REASONABLY”, PARTY PENALISED IN COSTS FOR NOT AGREEING TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME
In Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Hudson [2024] EWHC 1481 (KB) Mr Justice Knowles held that a party that had refused a reasonable request for an extension of time should pay the costs of that application. “……
COST BITES 169: AN EXAMPLE OF A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN ACTION
There is an interesting example of a summary assessment of costs in action in the judgment of Mr Andrew Twigger KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) in Wootton & Anor v Wootton & Ors (Re Costs)…
COST (MEGA) BITES 168: AN EXHAUSTING READ (V): BUDGETS THAT ARE DESCRIBED AS “ABSURDLY HIGH”, “WHOLLY EXCESSIVE” AND WHICH “STRAINS ALL CREDULITY”
Unsurprisingly we are returning to the judgment in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB). The judges gave some examples of parts of the claimants’ budgets in particular that had been “overbudgeted”. They were not shy IN setting out their…
COST (MEGA) BITES 167: AN EXHAUSTING CASE (IV): “BUT YOURS IS NEARLY AS BIG AS MINE” IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT: COSTS BUDGETS COULD NOT BE COMPARED
We are continuing to look at the judgment in relation to the budgets in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB). In this post we are considering the argument that since claimants’ budget was very similar to the defendants’…
COST (MEGA) BITES 166: AN EXAUSTING CASE (iii): “THE CLAIMANTS’ APPROACH TO BUDGETING IS REDOLENT OF FINANCIAL INCONTINENCE”
The general observations made about the budgets in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB) is of importance. The court was particularly scathing of the claimants’ budget. It also rejected the claimants’ contention that the defendants’ budget had been artificially…
COST (MEGA) BITES 165: AN EXHAUSTING CASE (ii): PROPORTIONALITY WHERE THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM THE CASE IS WORTH £6 BILLION: THE PARTIES ARE NOT HANDED A BLANK CHEQUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERABLE COSTS
We are continuing with the examination of the judgment of Mr Justice Constable and Senior Costs Judge Saker in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB). This time by looking at the court’s consideration of issues of proportionality when…
COST (MEGA) BITES 164: AN EXHAUSTING CASE:COSTS BUDGETING WHEN THE BUDGETS TOTAL £650 MILLION (1): GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The judgment of Mr Justice Constable sitting with Senior Costs Judge Saker in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB) contains much that is of interest to litigators. The judges budgeted a case where the claimants sought over £342…
COST BITES 163: NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL RESPONDENT’S COSTS: A POINT OR TWO ABOUT “CLIENT’S” SUBMISSIONS
In McAteer v Hat & Mitre & Ors (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 1746 (Ch) Sir Anthony Mann (sitting as a High Court Judge) dismissed the unsuccessful appellant’s application that the respondent’s costs be reduced. There were also some important…
IMPORTANT THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WHILE THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN MENZIES -v- OAKWOOD IS PENDING
The Court of Appeal decision in Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 844 was appealed to the Supreme Court and was heard last week. The judgment is pending. In the interim period my colleague Matthew Smith suggests that claimant…
COST BITES 162: YOU CAN’T SEND SOMEONE TO PRISON FOR NOT PAYING YOUR COSTS – YOU REALLY CAN’T
In Smith v Kirkegaard [2024] EWCA Civ 698 the Court of Appeal found that it is not possible to imprison someone for contempt if they have failed to pay costs ordered during a court action. The judgment involves a look…
COSTS BITES 161: WHAT TYPE OF BILL IS THIS? STATUTE BILLS OR INTERIM BILLS? THE SOLICITOR COULD EASILY HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM BY CLEAR DRAFTING IN THE RETAINER
The importance of careful drafting in a client retainer can be seen in the judgment of Costs Judge Whalan in Stella v Hodge Jones & Allan LLP [2024] EWHC 1704 (SCCO). The case concerned an issue about whether interim bills…
COST BITES 160: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENTS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF “ESTIMATES” OF COSTS
We are looking for the third time at the judgment in St. James v Wilkin Chapman LLP [2024] EWHC 1716 (KB). One of the issues that the (former) client raised was the absence of any accurate estimate in relation to costs…
COST BITES 159: DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLIENT’S DAMAGES: THE GOLDEN RULE – THAT THE CLIENT SHOULD BE KEPT INFORMED
We are looking again at the judgment in St. James v Wilkin Chapman LLP [2024] EWHC 1716 (KB). The judge considered the question of whether the client had been informed that the budget had been exceeded and that the solicitors…
THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER (SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS): WEBINAR 15th JULY 2024
The previous post on the judgment in St. James v Wilkin Chapman LLP [2024] EWHC 1716 (KB) highlights the fact that great care is needed in entering into funding agreements with clients when the solicitor proposes to deduct costs from the…
COST BITES 158: SOLICITOR WAS ONLY ENTITLED TO SUCCESS FEE AND NO FURTHER COSTS: HIGH COURT DECISION ON APPEAL
In St. James v Wilkin Chapman LLP [2024] EWHC 1716 (KB) Mr Justice Constable allowed an appeal against a decision that a solicitor was entitled to deduct additional costs from the claimant’s damages. The judge held that the terms of…
COST BITES 157: AGREEMENT AS TO COSTS BETWEEN CLIENT AND SOLICITOR WAS CONTRACTUALLY BINDING: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT STRUCK OUT
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED IN AN APPEAL BY CONSENT. SEE THE POST ON THE 8th JULY 2025 I am grateful to my colleague Kevin Latham for drawing my attention to the decision of Mr Justice Eyre in Holcroft v…
WHEN SHOULD A PART 20 DEFENDANT BE LIABLE TO PAY THE PART 20 CLAIMANT’S COSTS OF DEFENDING THE MAIN ACTION? THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED
In Alison Healey (Widow And Executrix of the Estate of Simon Andrew Healey, Deceased) v Mr Daniel McgRath [2024] EWHC 1360 (KB) Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered the question of whether it was appropriate…
COST BITES 156: COSTS BUDGETING WAS APPROPRIATE IN THE CASE OF A SERIOUSLY INJURED CHILD: IT HELPS THE CLAIMANT AS MUCH AS THE DEFENDANT
I am grateful to PJ Kirby KC for sending me a copy of the judgment of Master Brown in the case of PXT -v- Atere-Roberts [2024] EWHC 1372 (KB), a copy of which is available here Judgment PXT final 6…
COST BITES 155: HOW PARTICULAR SHOULD POINTS OF DISPUTE BE? AINSWORTH PRINCIPLES APPLY TO INTERPARTES ASSESSMENTS
In Wazen v Khan [2024] EWHC 1083 (SCCO) Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC considered the question of how detailed and particularised points of dispute have to be. In particular whether the principles in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY COST CLAIMANT £325,000 IN DEFENCE COSTS EVEN AFTER THE CLAIM HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED
I am grateful to Louise Jackson from Clyde & Co for drawing my attention to her piece about a recent settlement in a case where fundamental dishonesty was alleged. This is not a case that got to trial. However it…
UPDATE ON PREVIOUS POST: SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S COSTS REDUCED BY 25% BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CONSIDER MEDIATION
Following the previous post about the judgment of HHJ Mithani KC in Conway v Conway & Anor (Rev1) [2024] EW Misc 19 (CC) there is an interesting post about the subsequent decision of costs. This is on Linked In by…
COST BITES 154: SOLICITOR’S COSTS AND ESTIMATES: A CASE THAT EVERY PRIVATE CLIENT AND EVERY LITIGATOR SHOULD READ
If ever there was a graphic warning of the way that costs can escalate beyond estimates it can be found in the judgment of Costs Judge Leonard in Griffin v Kleyman & Co Solicitors Ltd *[2024] EWHC 1151 (SCCO). The judge rejected…
TRANSFER FROM PART 8 TO PART 7 REVISITED: IT CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE BUSINESS
There have been a lot of cases recently regarding the question of whether an action was properly issued using the Part 8 procedure. We looked at the case of ISG Retail Ltd v FK Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 878 (TCC) in…
COST BITES 153: ANOTHER ROUND IN THE BREAKDOWN OF MEDICAL REPORT FEES ONGOING SAGA: THE INVOICE SHOULD PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN
I am grateful to Simon Fisher from DWF for providing me with a copy of the judgment of Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in CXR -v- Dome Holdings Limited, a copy of the judgment is available here CXR v Dome…
COST BITES 152: A PARTY MUST PROVIDE A SCHEDULE OF COSTS FOR A HEARING, EVEN IF IT DOESN’T EXPECT TO GET PAID
The judgment of Mr Justice Roth in Scenic International Group Ltd v Adenaike & Ors (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch) provides some important observations on the mandatory requirement for a party to produce a schedule of costs if it…
JOINING A SOLICITOR INTO AN APPLICATION, WITH A THREAT OF COSTS – LED TO THE APPLICANTS PAYING £45,000 IN COSTS
The case of Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors v Wojakowski & Anor [2024] EWHC 1196 (Ch) is a real world example of the dangers of joining a litigant’s firm of solicitors in an application, threatening to seek costs against them. …
MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: BUT IT MIGHT DO: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
I am grateful to both Kevin Latham and Andrew Buchan for pointing out the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Thakkar & Ors v Mican & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 552. The court held that a judge had acted…
COST BITES 151: DOES QOCS APPLY TO DETAILED ASSESSMENT? YES IT DOES – BUT THE DEFENDANT HAS PERMISSION TO APPEAL
In Challis v Bradpiece [2024] EWHC 1124 (SCCO) Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC considered of whether a claimant had QOCS protection in detailed assessment. He concluded that the claimant continued to have costs protection. He accepted that the point was…
ARGUING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BILL: ANOTHER ROUND IN THE DISCLOSURE OF AGENCY COSTS AND MEDICAL FEES WAR: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH PART 18 REQUESTS FOR A BREAKDOWN OF THE INVOICE
I am grateful to Ben Millns from Kennedys for sending me a copy of the decision in Parsons -v- Stevens, a copy of which is available here. Deputy District Judge Fentem decided that it was appropriate to make an order…
REDUCING THE RISKS OF ADVERSE COSTS ORDERS IN CIVIL LITIGATION: WEBINAR 20th MAY 2024
A costs order against your client is always a painful event. This webinar looks at the best and safest means of litigating to avoid costs orders against a claimant. It covers areas relating to extensions of time, relief from sanctions…
COST BITES 150: WAS THIS A COMPLIANT STATUTE BILL (NO IT WASN’T): PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS BEWARE
In Hensley v Morris Law Ltd [2024] EWHC 1101 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley held that a bill provided by a claimant’s solicitor to their client was not a compliant bill. It is a judgment that emphasises the importance of the…
COST BITES 149: SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT – WERE THESE STATUTE BILLS? (YES THEY WERE)
In Pickering v Thomas Mansfield Solicitors Ltd [2024] EWHC 1107 (SCCO) Costs Judge Brown found that a series of invoices rendered by the defendant solicitors were “statute bills”. He rejected an argument that the requirements for such bills had been…
COSTS – WHEN YOU SOMETIMES THINK THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD: SPEND £28,535 TO CHALLENGE AN ATE PREMIUM OF £392…
In Bendriss v Nicholson Jones Sutton Solicitors Ltd [2024] EWHC 1100 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley dismissed a claimant’s application for specific disclosure. One notable aspect of the application was that the claimant had spent £28,535 in respect of this one application in…
WHAT TO DO IF THE DEFENDANT MAKES AN EARLY PART 36 OFFER 2024 : WEBINAR 13th MAY 2024
The making of an early Part 36 offer can cause major problems for claimants and their lawyers. An understanding of the rules, the relevant cases and the steps that need to be taken when a Part 36 offer is made…
INCREASE IN COURT FEES FROM THE 1ST MAY 2024
Court fees increased from the 1st May. Details of all court fees increased can be seen here. The increases apply in family and tribunal proceedings in addition to civil cases. 172 court fees have been increased by 10%. Here we…
You must be logged in to post a comment.