Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Solicitor and own client assessment
DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLAIMANT'S DAMAGES: A DEDUCTION OF £2,500 REDUCED TO £330: THE WARNING NOTICE FROM THE SRA REITERATED IN A COURT JUDGMENT

DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES: A DEDUCTION OF £2,500 REDUCED TO £330: THE WARNING NOTICE FROM THE SRA REITERATED IN A COURT JUDGMENT

April 20, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

The previous post mentioned a webinar this Friday on deducting costs from the client’s damages.  Right on cue this judgment occurred on that very topic.  It makes some very important observations.  It has created more work in preparing the webinar,…

COST BITES 373: THIS ENGAGEMENT LETTER WAS NOT A CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT: "CERTAINTY" IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT

COST BITES 373: THIS ENGAGEMENT LETTER WAS NOT A CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT: “CERTAINTY” IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT

April 8, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In this case the court considered whether a solicitor’s letter of engagement amounted to the creation of a Contentious Business Agreement.  It was held that there was too much uncertainty for this to be a CBA. The failure to set…

COST BITES 367: THE SOLICITOR'S TERMS OF BUSINESS MEANT THAT BILLS RENDERED WERE EACH FINAL BILLS: THE TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT WERE "UNEQUIVOCALLY CLEAR"

COST BITES 367: THE SOLICITOR’S TERMS OF BUSINESS MEANT THAT BILLS RENDERED WERE EACH FINAL BILLS: THE TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT WERE “UNEQUIVOCALLY CLEAR”

March 24, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The issue of whether “interim” bills rendered by solicitors were “statute” bills or “Chamberlain” bills is one that can have profound practical importance. If they are not statute bills then they may be open to a Solicitors Act assessment. If…

COST BITES 252: WHEN CAN A SOLICITOR PROPERLY TERMINATE A RETAINER? WAS THE CLIENT "THROWN TO THE LIONS"?

COST BITES 252: WHEN CAN A SOLICITOR PROPERLY TERMINATE A RETAINER? WAS THE CLIENT “THROWN TO THE LIONS”?

July 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs

Here we are looking at a very small part of a judgment in relation to costs on a solicitor/own client assessment. On of the arguments put forward by the (former) client was that the retainer was wrongfully terminated shortly before…

COST BITES 250: SHOULD THE CLAIMANT'S SOLICITOR BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER A FULL SUCCESS FEE AND THE ATE PREMIUM? A DECISION MADE ON APPEAL

COST BITES 250: SHOULD THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITOR BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER A FULL SUCCESS FEE AND THE ATE PREMIUM? A DECISION MADE ON APPEAL

July 2, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Insurance premiums, Members Content, Personal Injury

We are looking at a decision made on appeal in relation to the very common issue of the percentage of a success fee and the taking out, and subsequent deduction from damages, of an After the Event Insurance policy.  The…

COST BITES 228 : DEFENDANT SOLICITOR TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE CLAIMANT ISSUING PROCEEDINGS SEEKING A STATUTE BILL

COST BITES 228 : DEFENDANT SOLICITOR TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE CLAIMANT ISSUING PROCEEDINGS SEEKING A STATUTE BILL

April 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Franklin v Your Lawyers Ltd [2025] EWHC 984 (SCCO) Acting Senior Costs Judge Rowley dismissed a defendant solicitor’s argument that it should recover its costs after its former client had issued proceedings seeking the delivery of a statute bill. …

COST BITES 224 :  SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: COSTS JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIMANT'S PART 8 ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE PART 7 PROCEEDINGS PENDING: (DEFENDANT'S COSTS DESCRIBED AS "INCREDIBLE)"

COST BITES 224 : SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: COSTS JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIMANT’S PART 8 ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE PART 7 PROCEEDINGS PENDING: (DEFENDANT’S COSTS DESCRIBED AS “INCREDIBLE)”

April 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In Captivatiun Ltd v Orr Litchfield Solicitors Ltd [2025] EWHC 679 (SCCO)  Costs Judge Nagalingam dismissed a client’s application for an assessment of costs under Part 8.  The application was made out of time and there were ongoing Part 7…

SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS: KEEPING THE CLIENT INFORMED: AN ASSESSESSMENT WHERE THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE NOT APPROVED BY THE CLIENT

SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS: KEEPING THE CLIENT INFORMED: AN ASSESSESSMENT WHERE THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE NOT APPROVED BY THE CLIENT

December 13, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Costs Judge Nagalingam in  Underhill v Thackray Williams Solicitors [2024] EWHC 3206 (SCCO) could well serve as an object lesson in the need for a solicitor to keep their client informed of developments in costs and to…

COST BITES 183: A SERIES OF BILLS WERE NOT STATUTE BILLS: "CHAMBERLAIN" NOT ENGAGED: THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE FOUND "SPECIAL REASONS" TO ALLOW ASSESSMENT IN ANY EVENT

COST BITES 183: A SERIES OF BILLS WERE NOT STATUTE BILLS: “CHAMBERLAIN” NOT ENGAGED: THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE FOUND “SPECIAL REASONS” TO ALLOW ASSESSMENT IN ANY EVENT

September 30, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Guest Supplies Intl Ltd v Spector Constant & Williams Limited [2024] EWHC 2450 (SCCO)  Costs Judge Nagalingam decided that a series of bills sent by a solicitor were not statutory bills, neither were they “Chamberlain bills”.  In any event…

COST BITES 131: TIME LIMIT FOR ASSESSMENT EXTENDED WHEN BENEFICIARY CHALLENGES COSTS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

COST BITES 131: TIME LIMIT FOR ASSESSMENT EXTENDED WHEN BENEFICIARY CHALLENGES COSTS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

January 18, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Alicia Tew  for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal decision today in Kenig v Thomson Snell & Passmore Llp [2023] EWHC 181 (SCCO).  The Court considered the question of whether the costs judge…

COST BITES 95: A SOLICITOR'S BILL IS "PAID" WHEN FUNDS ARE DEDUCTED FROM DAMAGES AND A COMPLIANT BILL SENT TO THE CLIENT

COST BITES 95: A SOLICITOR’S BILL IS “PAID” WHEN FUNDS ARE DEDUCTED FROM DAMAGES AND A COMPLIANT BILL SENT TO THE CLIENT

July 14, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

NB this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court. See the discussion on the Supreme Court decision here.  In Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 844 the Court of Appeal held that a solicitors bill is “paid” when…

SOLICITOR'S NEGLIGENCE & SOLICITOR'S COSTS: ELEMENTARY ISSUES WORTH READING

December 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The transcript of Edwin Coe LLP -v- Aidiniantz [2014] EWHC 3994 (QB) is worth reading for a number of reasons: (i) The nature of the duty owed by the solicitor in litigation; (ii)evidence and contemporary documents and (iii) the circumstances…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 3rd JUNE 2026
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 79: COURT REJECTS CLAIMANT’S AMENDMENT APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WERE “REASONABLY ARGUABLE” ISSUES IN RELATION TO LIMITATION
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 78: CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND PARTICULARS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE/FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIM
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: AMENDING PLEADINGS : A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES: WHAT IS MEANT BY “LATE”? (MAY 2015)
  • COST BITES : BOTH PARTIES MADE “PART 36 OFFERS”: BOTH WERE INEFFECTIVE (AND THE MASTER WOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES EVEN IF THEY WERE VALID…)

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.