The defendant costs specialists

Posts made in June, 2011

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

By on Jun 30, 2011 | 2 comments

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, implementing the Jackson proposals, comfortably passed its second reading in the House of Commons yesterday with no signs of a Common’s rebellion. However, I am grateful to Professor Dominic Regan’s Blog for pointing out that the act does not seem to deal with qualified one-way costs shifting, the 10% damages uplift or proportionality changes. Although damages could be increased by judicial diktat, it is hard to see how the other reforms can happen without clear legislation. Perhaps the government is going to end recoverability of additional liabilities but will quietly drop the corresponding introduction of qualified one-way costs...

Read More

Signature to the bill

By on Jun 22, 2011 | 12 comments

Lord Justice Henry’s held in Bailey v IBC Vehicles [1998] EWCA Civ 566 that: “The signature of the bill of costs under the Rules is effectively the certificate by an officer of the Court that the receiving party’s solicitors are not seeking to recover in relation to any item more than they have agreed to charge their client under a contentious business agreement. The Court can (and should unless there is evidence to the contrary) assume that his signature to the bill of costs shows that the indemnity principle has not been offended.” Costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen who have worked in costs for any length of time will have their own views as to the wisdom of the idea that solicitors can be trusted to self-certify their bills. However, an interesting article in Solicitors Journal, under the heading “John Taylor investigates why solicitors are so prone to committing extraordinary feats of fraud”, casts further light on the subject. Recent research revealed: “solicitors, or trainee solicitors on which the research was based, show no greater ethical reluctance in respect of what might be best described as day-to-day petty illegal acts – for example, travelling on the train without paying, disobeying road signs, minor fiddling of expenses, claiming small amounts of overtime which they haven’t worked – than the public in general. … Law attracts the type of person who scores highly on the mild social deviance scale. … There is a high correlation between mild social deviance (such as being paid in cash without paying tax or travelling on trains without paying) and attraction of prestige and status. This indicates that people who are attracted to law because of its status would also be prepared to commit minor frauds.” Something for costs judges to think about when the receiving party next seeks to rely on the signature to the...

Read More

No win, no fee, no logic

By on Jun 20, 2011 | 1 comment

The muddled thinking coming from the anti-Jackson movement continues, as charmingly shown by Nigel Muers-Raby, Chairman of the Consumer Justice Alliance (Law Society Gazette, letters, 26 May). His letter begins: “Your recent article reporting on the increased number of medical negligence claims in 2010 is interesting, but the Medical Defence Union reaches a highly speculative conclusion. The MDU offers no firm evidence for its suggestion that ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements are behind the increase in medical negligence claims reported in 2010.” Fair enough. The point being made here is that there is no evidence that ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements increase the number of medical negligence claims that are brought. And then, with just one sentence separating this argument, we are presented with: “There is no doubt in our minds that someone who has suffered an accident will find life much tougher if ‘no win, no fee’ agreements are lost: ultimately it will hinder their ability to seek fair and reasonable access to justice.” We are now presented with the argument that ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements enable more medical negligence claims to be brought than would otherwise be the case. Either ‘no win, no fee’ agreements have no effect on the number of claims brought or they increase the number. What they can’t do is both these things at the same time. I can understand the anti-Jackson lobby trying to mobilise whichever argument suits them on any given occasion but surely they have the sense not to use contradictory arguments in the same letter. And they wonder why Jackson totally ignored...

Read More

The cost of security

By on Jun 17, 2011 | 1 comment

One aspect of the preliminary issues judgment in Motto & Ors v Trafigura Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 90201 (Costs) (15 February 2011) that I did not quite understand concerned the cost of security. The claimants’ solicitors had needed to pay for security for their employees whilst working in a dangerous part of the world. These costs were claimed as a specific category of legal costs. Master Hurst allowed such costs and said: “The decision which I have reached in relation to hourly rates does not reflect an additional element for the cost of security in the Ivory Coast, but rather, as Mr Williams submits, the overheads of a firm based in Clarkenwell. Had the hourly rates included an element for overseas security, I should have had to hear argument and details before arriving at a final figure. In the event, therefore, to the extent that it is reasonable and proportionate, the cost of security is recoverable.” However, when dealing with the issue of what hourly rates to allow he ruled: “In my view it is also necessary to take into account the inevitable increase in overheads that will be incurred by having to employ people to work in dangerous conditions overseas.” Perhaps this was meant to mean that staff might have had to be paid more than normal to work in dangerous conditions, and thus the firm would be paying higher salaries (so incurring higher overheads) than would normally be the case. However, this might have been worded more...

Read More

Costs draftsmen hourly rates

By on Jun 15, 2011 | 16 comments

The amount of the claim for costs in the case of Motto & Ors v Trafigura Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 90201 (Costs) (15 February 2011) – £104,707,772.72 – was truly eye-watering. This was, on any analysis, a complex group action involving 30,000 claimants. So, what did Master Hurst have to say about the appropriate hourly rates to allow for the law costs draftsmen who prepared the bill of costs in what must be one of the largest and most complex legal costs claims ever seen? “The final matter raised by Mr Bacon was the rate payable to the costs draftsmen. He suggested this should be the grade D rate, and criticised the various mistakes which had been thrown up in the way in which the bill had been drawn. I have no details of the number of costs draftsmen involved, but am aware that Mr Ellis, who is a very experienced costs draftsman, has been in court throughout the hearing. I would expect Mr Ellis to be charged at the grade C rate, and for other more junior costs draftsmen to be charged at the grade D rate. This is a matter which may have to be argued further when the details of the costs draftsmen’s involvement are known.” One of the most well respected costs draftsman in the country, dealing with one of the most complex costs matters, and the provisional view was that grade C rates were appropriate with everyone else at grade D. What a contrast with the views expressed in Cook on Costs: “in heavy bills involving amounts considerably in excess of the fast track … the use of a Grade A or B draftsman … would be reasonable and...

Read More