One of the inherent difficulties when advising defendants in relation to cost disputes is the difficult question of determining which points are worth taking and which ones are not. One costs judge’s technical dispute wholly lacking in merit is another costs judges perfectly proper challenge that will meet with success. For example, where there has been a failure to serve the proper statements/risk assessments in support of a success fee or a fully compliant ATE certificate, some costs judges will happily grant relief from sanctions even where the application is not made until the middle of the detailed assessment hearing itself, and only made orally without any evidence in support (notwithstanding the fact the dispute was raised many months in advance); whereas other costs judges will invariably disallow the additional liabilities in the absence of an early formal application properly supported by evidence.
The unpredictability of the process is made worse by the equally unpredictable approach adopted by opponents. Although it comes as no surprise when they fail to make any concessions to disputes raised, sometimes regardless of the strength of the dispute, there are others who will make voluntary concessions that certainly go way beyond what it is probable a court will disallow, even if not impossible.
The difficulty is therefore whether to plead every available point, regardless of how speculative in nature, on the off-chance that it might possibly be successful, or whether to limit one’s disputes to those that are most likely to succeed. The former approach runs the risk of escalating the detailed assessment costs, and annoying some costs judges; the latter approach runs the risk that potential costs savings are not maximised.
Obviously, in large part this comes down to a question of judgement based on experience. But, again, the difficulty is that experience shows the inherent unpredictability of the whole process.
1 thought on “Predicting the unpredictable in costs disputes”
Simon
What you say is spot on, particularly the final paragraph. You can never be 100% sure of anything on detailed assessment but I think that years of experience and being realsitic is invaluable when advising. My business is about 50-50 between Claimant and Defendant but it is the same either way.
I plead almost every possible point when doing Points of Dispute but drop those with no real merit at the detailed assessment hearing. That way the Costs Judge does not get annoyed and indeed is often pleased and sometimes the points without merit are conceded. We have to bear in mind that occasionally the opponent has little knowledge of costs.