To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
17 thoughts on “Costs Only Proceedings”
Lets be honest about this: ‘paying parties’ want to keep hold of their money for as long as possible (they probably iron their bank notes they like it so much), and so they DELAY in the hope that receiving parties might forget that they are entitled to costs….
In short this rule was probably hardly ever used!
I work for a major defendant firm and we used to issue P8 proceedings several times a week when claimants were dragging their feet.
Typical Claimant clap-trap from TECP. Claimant has three months to draw a bill and the Defendant has three weeks to respond. If the Claimant was given six months, the file would still sit on the floor until month 5.5 before the Claimant costs draftsman bothered to do anything with it.
Dear Tired: You may take 6 months to draw a bill but I stick to a 10 day turnaround, as solicitors, strange as it may seem, want the costs settled ASAP to help with something called ‘cash flow’.
The 3 month time limit to draw the bill is only relevant where proceedings were issued in the substantive case re judgement debt interest.
@ ”Monkey tail” that is extremely good news, if only I could attract client’s that claim their costs from this major firm. It would save me a lot of work!
Well said, some of us do a good job! As for Tired features, do us a favour a go to sleep if your not already. I bet you’ve got tons of DCC’s against you.
Hi Simon, have you read CPR 46.14 yet?
Yes.
Whilst i think that both TCD and TECP need to take a chill pill, is it not slightly daft that a receiving party has three months to prepare a bill and very few are served on time, yet a paying party has 3 weeks and certain firms of cd’s refuse to grant extensions (i can think of one firm in particular beginning MER) ? As for the point about insurers wanting to hold onto money and hope that the claim goes away, as a Defendant man, that is not my experience as it means that the insurer has to hold an open reserve on the file. Insurers want to close files – that is often why costs claims are over-settled.
The line was probably removed because it’s superfluous.
It’s only superfluous if there is still a right for either party to issue. Is there? This was an unusual provision allowing a defendant to the original claim to issue proceedings.
I don’t see how 46.14 precludes a Defendant from issuing under Part 8. There is no language which limits the provision to “claimant” or “receiving party” but there is use of “a party” and “parties”. However, the practice direction is certainly worded with claimants in mind.
Shame on you all. This blog saddens me SG.
I’ve been involved in costs for over 8 years and I firmly believe that if we all pull together, Defendants and Claimants alike, there is no reason why all facets of these elaborate reforms can’t work brilliantly. It needs only one opening act of kindness as the catalyst to costs utopia.
I’m stepping up. On 31st March 2013, I shall be holding a ‘costs armistice’ in my kitchenette and you’re all invited! (address and snack list to follow). There’s no talking ‘shop’ just wholesome costs fun –
1. Charades (Provisional Assessment)
2. Pass the Precedent H
3. 200 questions (PODS)
and my personal fave….
4. Spin the costs practice direction.
PS. HMCTS staff are welcome if available.
Nothing wrong with the present Part 8??????
How about the one defendant firm, who oppose Part 8 knowing it will be automatically dismissed, just because they/their clients can’t be bothered dealing with claims in a reasonable timeframe??
Thankfully, that automatic dismissal seems to be gone
“How about the one defendant firm, who oppose Part 8 knowing it will be automatically dismissed”
I work on the claimant side – not seen that – Intrigued as to who it is!!
Surely if they do that you then Sue again for Breach of Contract and that’s a whole lot more expensive??
Annon 4.44pm
Think about how long it all takes, cash flow………….
@Annon couldn’t possibly mention names, but if you stab hard(s) you might get it.
Yes, sue that way after, by which time you have a sensible offer and lost the wasted Part 8 costs and 70 days work/interest