Filed Underdetailed assessment
My two-part article from Costs Lawyer magazine on the county court provisional assessment pilot can now be read in the News section of our website for those who missed it the first time.
14 Responses to “Provisional Assessment Pilot article”
I see in your article you refer briefly to whether attendance on ATE insurers etc is an inter partes expense – a debate that has been had on these pagaes before.
Master Hurst has now reviewed the various “authorities” and concluded that it is. My guess is that this will now be the last word at first instance.See paras 451 to 466 of Motto v Trafigura Ltd (15 Feb 2011).
Jacques, has that been published?
One of the counsel sent to me, but I haven’t seen it on Lawtel yet. On the other hand it is very long so it may be that it is still being summarised
First instance, non-binding decision…
I wonder what approach other costs judges will now take. The last case I had before Master Haworth he disallowed these costs. I would be somewhat surprised if he, or other costs judges, now conclude they were wrong (whatever weight this decision may have in other courts).
I suppose it may be said to be a decision of particular weight, as it was a reserved judgment decided after full argument (3 silks on one side, including Nicholas Bacon, 2 silks on the other side plus a specialist junior). The big question must be: what will Master Rogers make of it? He after all has the distinction of having decided the point both ways! (Woolley/Bollito)
The last two costs judges I was before disallowed all funding costs within the claimant’s bill (both were bills of over £1m so these costs were substantial.)
I doubt any first instance decision will be the last word on the subject.
I never even began to understand Master Roger’s approach in those two case. If he was correct in Woolley that: “In my judgment, the costs of funding have never been recoverable and nothing has changed as a result of the introduction of CPR or, indeed, as a result of the introduction of the CFA Regulations, and therefore that element of this bill in which the Claimant seeks to recover is funding costs, fails,” then that is an end to the matter.
How can there then be a discretion to allow such costs because the amount of the irrecoverable costs is “sufficiently large”. Are we to have solicitor/own client costs allowed between the parties if they are large enough?
He had a bad day indeed. He noted that there was no binding authority and that the world would benefit from such an authority and then refused permission to appeal. Genius
If its any help, those of us whom work in the real world i.e. anywhere outside of the SCCO, will be aware that most DJ’s, and RCJ’s, routinely allow funding work as a a matter of course – and that is country-wide.
It doesnt stop Defendants raising and maintaining the argument of course, nor pleading “Wooley” as the singular and definitive decision on the subject
[...] on from my two-part article on the Leeds provisional assessment pilot, in Costs Lawyer magazine, District Judge Hill wrote a very informative article in [...]
I didn’t say the first instance decision would be the last word, I said it was likely to be the last word at first instance! A key distinction.
which again begs the question as to why Roger’s declined permission to appeal for a binding authority
To be fair this issue has rumbled on forever and a day and ultimately both sides of the litigation fence make money off this issue and so maybe a binding authority is in no ones interest
Master Rogers moved in mysterious ways. He certainly generated a lot of appeals – one barrister quipped to me that a lot of high court judges have extra time on their hands since he retired. The reasoning in Bollito is laugh aloud funny – and in fairness to the master’s memory, there aren’t many costs judges whose judgments can be said to have added to the gaiety of the nation in this way…
traffigo now on bailii
Leave a Reply
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.
GWS - Defendant law costs draftsmen, costs lawyers and legal costs consultants