PAYING EXPERT’S FEES: INFORMING AN EXPERT THAT A HEARING IS CANCELLED AND – GETTING STRUCK OFF THE ROLL OF SOLICITORS …
The judgment in the case of Clegg v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2019] EWHC 2408. A solicitor was struck off, in circumstances that could easily have been avoided. It required the simple step of informing an expert that a trial had…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 60: INTERIM ORDERS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: “CASH FLOW IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF BUSINESS”
Here we look at the rules relating to interim orders on account of costs, a subject of considerable importance in relation to practitioner’s cash flow and client’s pockets. CPR 44.2(8) “(8) Where the court orders a party to pay costs…
DE MINIMIS BREACH OF RULES DID NOT LEAD TO PART 36 OFFER BEING INVALID
In Momonakaya v the Ministry of Defence [2019] EWHC 480 (QB) HHJ Blair QC considered whether a claimant had properly accepted a Part 36 offer. It was held that an offer that breached the rules in a de minimis way was…
AN OFFER TO SETTLE FOR NO DAMAGES CAN STILL BE A VALID PART 36 OFFER: APPEAL AGAINST NO ORDER FOR COSTS ALLOWED (IN PART)
In MR v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1970 (QB) Mrs Justice McGowan allowed an appeal as to costs in a issue relating to Part 36. She held that the trial judge had erred in making no…
WHY IT IS IMPORTANT LITIGATORS KNOW HOW TO COMPUTE TIME PROPERLY: 7 DAYS MEANS 7 DAYS: APPLICATION TWO DAYS LATE: CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF
In Evans v Pinsent Masons LLP [2019] EWHC 2150 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer overturned a decision granting relief from sanctions. A major issue arose out of confusion by the claimant’s solicitors over the calculation of the time period. This…
“YOURS IS BIGGER THAN MINE”: COMPARISON OF COSTS NOT ALWAYS APPROPRIATE
In Monex Europe Ltd v Pothecary & Anor [2019] EWHC 2204 (QB) Clive Sheldon QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) did not accept an argument that the fact that defendants’ costs were much higher than the claimant’s figures…
NO COSTS ORDER AGAINST SOLICITORS OR COUNSEL WHO WERE ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS
In Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 2183 (Ch) Lady Justice Rose dismissed an application for costs against solicitors and counsel who had represented an unsuccessful party on a conditional fee basis. “… there is a strong public interest…
A SOLICITOR WHO FILES AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE STAYS ON THE RECORD UNTIL A NOTICE OF CHANGE OR THEY MAKE AN APPLICATION TO BE REMOVED
In Ashley & Anor v Jimenez [2019] EWHC 1806 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh rejected an argument that service on a solicitor who given their address for service in the acknowledgement of service was not good service of an application. For…
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DETAILED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REFUSED:
There are many lessons that litigation lawyers can learn from the judgment of Master Leonard in Rattan v Carter-Ruck Solicitors [2019] EWHC B9 (Costs). It is a case where a client agreed to a settlement and then, essentially, sought to…
WHEN YOU ARE CHALLENGING A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT “BE PREPARED”: MASTER FINDS THAT COURT COSTS OFFICERS DO HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENTS: THE LIMITED SCOPE OF AN APPEAL FROM A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT
I am grateful to my colleague Robin Dunne for sending me a copy of the decision of Master Leonard in PME -v- The Scout Association (30/07/2019). 1. JUDGMENT PME (003). This deals with two issues (i) the jurisdiction of…
CLAIMANT’S PART 36 “SUBJECT TO A NIL CRU” WAS A VALID OFFER: IF THE DEFENDANT WAS CONFUSED THEY SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT CLARIFICATION
The judgment of District Judge Hickinbottom in Gibbons -v- Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (o4/06/2019), discussed in an earlier post, also has an interesting section in relation to a Part 36 offer. “It seems to me the Defendant could…
CASE FALLING OUTSIDE THE FIXED COSTS REGIME: ASSAULT BY A VULNERABLE ADULT: REPORT OF A FIRST INSTANCE DECISION: FIXED COSTS DO NOT APPLY
I am grateful to solicitor John McQuater for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Hickinbottom in Gibbons -v- Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (o4/06/2019). It concerns the question of whether an assault by…
RECOVERING THE COST OF ATTENDING THE INQUEST: MUST BE BOTH RELEVANT AND PROPORTIONATE (BUT PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT JUST ABOUT MONEY)
The judgment today in Fullick & Ors v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1941 (QB) deals with the, often challenging, question of whether the costs of attending an inquest is recoverable in cases where the claimant…
COURT REFUSES TO MAKE ORDER THAT A DEFENDANT DISCLOSES FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS
In Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) Mr Justice Warby refused a claimant’s application for disclosure of the defendants’ funding arrangements. “Beyond this is the common-sense point, that the Court will not be keen to allow…
NO YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RECOVER £25,000 FOR LEADING COUNSEL TO ATTEND A LOW LEVEL HEARING – NOT EVEN ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Timokhina v Timokhin [2019] EWCA Civ 1284 the Court of Appeal overturned an order that a mother pay counsel’s fees of certain hearings. The judgment is interesting in that costs were disallowed (inter partes) as unreasonable even when the…
PROPORTIONALITY AND PREMIUMS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
In West -v- Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220 the Court of Appeal considered the question of proportionality in relation to clinical negligence actions and the “recoverable” element of ATE insurance. I am grateful to Sean Linley for…
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…
PROPORTIONALITY: SHOULD HINDSIGHT BE A FACTOR? EXTRACTS FROM O’HARE AND BROWNE ON CIVIL LITIGATION (YOU SAW IT HERE FIRST…)
I am grateful to John O’Hare for sending me an extract from the next edition of O’Hare and Browne on Civil Litigation (19th edition). It deals with proportionality and, in particular, whether hindsight should be a factor in assessing proportionality. …
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53A: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES: ALI -v-CHANNEL 5
Shortly after I completed the post on Part 36 offers after the costs budget has been confined to court fees Professor Dominic Regan reminded me that there is another example in Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd [2018] EWHC…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES
This may be an ambitious subject for the back to basics series. However here I want to look at the situation where a party has failed to file their costs budget timeously and the budget has been confined to court…