The defendant costs specialists

We're all doomed

By on Apr 30, 2010 | 9 comments

I am going to do something that does not come naturally to me. I have going to admit I was wrong. Worse than that, I am going to have to admit to being wrong about three things. This whole process is so traumatic that I am going to have to stagger this over several days.

I was wrong when I predicted that the new RTA Claims Process would not happen (see post) either because agreement would not be reached in relation to the rules or because the Jackson Costs Review would torpedo it.

Yet, here we are with the process due to launch today.

There are those who are already taking bets on how quickly the new "portal of doom" will crash.

I’m sticking with my other prediction that the process will produce a flood of satellite litigation, a view shared by Master Hurst who said at the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen’s AGM that the process is so complicated it would generate satellite litigation for "the foreseeable future".  So good news for law costs draftsmen and other costs professionals at least.
 

    9 Comments

  1. You have never responded to my posts of 16rg April (to your post of 15 April), arguing that you were wrong about there being any lacuna with child claims under the RTA protocal. Were you wrong? If so, where is the champagne?!

    Jacques Hughes

    2nd May 2010

  2. Well, I am sorry, but I still think there is no difficulty here. Here’s your conundrum: “the question is: what costs are payable, and by virtue of which draft rule, to a claimant child where damages are not agreed, the matter proceeds to a Stage 3 hearing and [he] obtains judgment for an amount equal to or less than the defendant’s offer?”

    The answer is: the position is precisely the same as if the claimant were an adult. He gets his stage 1 & 2 costs, but must pay the defendant’s stage 3 costs. I accept that there is an issue about the timing of payment of stage 2 costs, because of the terms of 7.61 of the PAP, but the original question was not about timing!

    Jacques Hughes

    2nd May 2010

  3. Which rule says the child is entitled to Stage 1 and 2 costs?

    Simon Gibbs

    2nd May 2010

  4. We still haven’t received our log in details… =/

    Android

    5th May 2010

  5. On top of that, everyone in our firm is going insane over the new costs regime. So many questions and no answers!

    Sorry for asking such a stupid question, but… if the defendant fails to pay stage 1 fixed recoverable costs, and the claim exits the RTA process, on what basis do you calculate the claimant’s costs in the end? Would it be the hourly rate? =///

    Android

    5th May 2010

  6. On the predictable cost basis assuming that the claim then settles pre-proceedings.

    Simon Gibbs

    6th May 2010

  7. This may be a more stupid question but do you need to serve a notice of funding under these rules?

    John Knowles

    7th May 2010

  8. There’s a special section about the funding arrangements in the application form (Section L).

    Android

    7th May 2010

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Wrong on Guideline Hourly Rates : GWS Law - [...] a previous post I wrote that I was going to admit to being wrong on three occasions.  Here is…

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *