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.
6 thoughts on “Splitting bills of costs to deal with proportionality”
stay silent as it benefits you – dont look at gift horse in the mouth
tut tut, why dont they read the rules??
and why invite the court to find a bill disproportionate by makiing such an obvious admission that it is!!
Can you at least confirm whether or not it was a costs lawyer?
Truly Elephant Costs Professional, in the context of this post that is a legitimate question but, unfortunately I don’t know the answer. However, the costs firm responsible for the same does include Costs Lawyers amongst the directors.
No further comments on that issue please. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
I actually had to refer to your post on this topic as guidance on splitting bills to reflect the pre and post April proportionality tests.
Is there anything other than common sense that requires the bill to be split pre and post 1 April? I could not see anything in the PD.
Have any Defendant posters thought of any other method of ensuring costs are proportionate to the amount in issue other than suggesting costs judge knocks a bit more off after having assessed the bill?
I know previous blog entries have highlighted the problem of how a Costs Judge deals with proportionality on a provisional assessment without having tallied up what the reductions to the bill come to but has anyone had any thoughts on a solution?
My thoughts so far are limited to either requesting an oral hearing if there is major proportionality issue under the new test or inviting the costs judge to do the maths or suggest limited to a maximum of £xxx(excluding addtional liabilities and VAT) – all of which seems a bit messy.