APPEAL ON COSTS BUDGETING : CLAIMANT’S APPEAL UNSUCCESSFUL: AN OFFER AS TO COSTS DOES NOT BECOME THE BENCHMARK FIGURE
In Gray v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1780 (QB) Mr Justice Lambert dismissed the claimant’s appeal from cost budgeting decisions. The judgment contains important observations about the nature of cost budgeting hearings and appeals on…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…
RULE CHANGES (109): ELECTRONIC FILING, INCURRED COSTS AND THE CCMC, SMALL CLAIM HEARINGS IN PRIVATE
We are now on the 109th update to the Civil Procedure Rules. The three points I want to look at in particular are: mandatory electronic filing in the QBD; the costs of the CCMC being clearly categorised as incurred costs;…
A CAVALCADE OF COSTS CASES: HOLIDAY READING: SOMETHING TO CHEER UP COST LAWYERS OVER THE BANK HOLIDAY WEEKEND…
A number of costs cases have arrived on BAILLI all are decisions of Master Rowley relating to costs. EXCLUDING INTEREST ON COSTS MEANS THAT THIS IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER Ngassa v The Home Office & Anor [2018] EWHC…
NEW PRECEDENT R: STARTED TODAY (CONTAIN YOUR EXCITEMENT): USEFUL LINKS AND GUIDANCE
Credit to Costs Lawyer Jessica Swannell for reminding people on Linked In that the new Precedent R must be used from today. It is a good time to provide a link to the new form and some useful posts and…
DEPARTING FROM THE BUDGET: IMPORTANT DECISION ON APPEAL: JUDGMENT NOW AVAILABLE
Both Professor Dominic Regan and Acumension have kindly sent me copies of the decision in Barts Health NHS Trust -v-Salmon an appeal in relation to costs budgeting (HHJ Dight CBE, with Master Brown as an assessor, 17th January 2019). A copy…
“THE CLAIMANTS MUST RUE THE DAY THEY REJECTED THE DEFENDANT’S OFFER”: CLAIMANT TO PAY STANDARD COSTS AFTER REJECTING VERY EARLY PART 36 OFFER
The costs judgment in Burgess & Anor v Lejonvarn [2019] EWHC 369 (TCC) is probably a judgment that should be shown to all litigants. The claimant rejected an offer of £25,000 and failed to beat that offer at trial. The defendant’s…
UNANTICIPATED SIZE OF DISCLOSURE WAS AN “UNANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT”: UPWARD REVISION OF COST BUDGET ALLOWED
In Al-Najar & Ors v The Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd [2018] EWHC 3532 (QB) Master Davison allowed an upward variation of the cost budget. The scale of disclosure given by the defendant could not have been anticipated and it was reasonable…
BACK TO BASICS 19: COSTS BUDGETING WHEN CASE IS MORE THAN £25,000 BUT LESS THAN £50,000
There are special rules governing budgets in cases where the claimant claims more than £25,000 but less than £50,000. Firstly the budget has to be filed much earlier. Secondly the budget “must” only be the first page of Precedent H….
“THIS IS AN ARCHETYPAL CASE WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS”: ANOTHER LATE COSTS BUDGET CASE
The judgment OF Mr Justice Bryan in BMCE Bank International Plc v Phoenix Commodities PVT Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 3380 (Comm) provides, as the judge noted, an archetypal example of the way not to go about cost budgeting, coupled with…
BACK TO BASICS 17: WHEN SHOULD A COST BUDGET BE FILED: WHERE THINGS GO WRONG
This may appear very basic. However I have seen both sides falling foul of this very recently. In particular the fact that the budget has to be filed with the directions questionnaire when the claim is limited to £50,000. THE…
COST BUDGETING: THE PARTIES MUST KNOW WHERE THEY STAND: LEAVING HOURLY RATES “OPEN” IS INAPPROPRIATE
I am grateful Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp to for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Jacobs in Yirenki -v- Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC 3102 (QB). The judge allowed an appeal against a cost budgeting…
SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE GUIDE 2018
The new Senior Court Costs Office Guide has been published. This replaces the 2013 version with immediate effect. It is available on the link in the page here. The new guide Deals with all changes since 2013. Deals with the electronic…
SANCTIONS AND COSTS BUDGETS: A “PARTIAL” BUDGET DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES BUT A “PARTIAL” SUCCESS FOR THE CLAIMANT ON APPEAL
In the judgment today in Page v RGC Restaurants Ltd [2018] EWHC 2688 (QB) Mr Justice Walker allowed an appeal in relation to the sanctions imposed when a claimant failed to file an costs budget that complied with the rules. The…
PROPORTIONALITY: A LITIGATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE VIII: PROPORTIONALITY LEADS TO BASE COSTS BEING REDUCED FROM £115,906.00 TO £75,000
I am grateful to my colleague Robin Dunne for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Auerbach in Reynolds -v- One Stop Limited (21st September 2018). A copy of the judgment is available A79YM916 Reynolds v One Stop…
BACK TO BASICS 16: COSTS BUDGETING: THE GUIDANCE NOTES ON PRECEDENT H
There is much written about the process of costs budgeting. There is much to be said, when preparing for a hearing – and often at the hearing itself, looking at the Practice Direction and Guidance Notes. THE PRACTICE DIRECTION The…
THE ELECTRONIC BILL OF COSTS: UPDATE TO LINKS, INCLUDING GUIDANCE ON THE ENTIRE PROCESS
There has been much recent comment on the “success” (or otherwise) of the electronic bill of costs. This is a guide time to update the links to commentary and guidance on the process. RECENT COMMENTARY The New Law Journal…
COSTS BUDGETING AND PROPORTIONALITY: JUST THE TICKET: JUDGE REJECTS COMPARISON WITH DEFENDANT’S BUDGET WHEN IT “JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE”
The issue of costs budgeting and proportionality was considered by Mr Justice Birss in Red and White Services Ltd v Phil Anslow Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 1699 (Ch). The judge was prepared to take a robust approach to proportionality. There…
SOLICITOR AND CLIENT COSTS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE – BOOK REVIEW: BUY IT AND READ IT: £30 WORTH SPENDING
Disputes about costs between lawyers and their (former) clients can be “challenging”. Indeed they can be vitriolic and expensive. The lawyer thinking “We’ve done the work” – the client thinking “how much” and “I got nothing out of it, why…
REDUCTION IN VALUE OF CLAIM AND REDUCTION IN HOURLY RATES DID NOT REPRESENT A GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM THE BUDGET
In Jallow v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC B7 (Costs) Master Rowley rejected an argument that the settlement of a claim for a sum less than that claimed and a reduction in hourly rates for incurred costs represented “good reasons”…