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.
10 thoughts on “Mandatory optional replies”
They also order dislcsoure of file notes of items in dipsute.
painful
because it is the Courts right to proportionately case manage, and this is designed to narrow the issues
if the receiving party has not taken up the “option” of assisting the Court, this Order is perfectly understandable
If there are genuine reasons for the receiving party not wishing to file and serve Replies, I would have thought that a simple letter to the Court to state that would suffice.
That being said, I would guess that any receiving party who didn’t file and serve Replies in a matter which falls to be provisionally assessed would be putting themselves at a distinct disadvantage.
I suppose it is a relic of the previous costs regime and a reminder that the parties should exhaust all avenues of negotiation before asking the Court to determine costs.
In my experience, and as we all know, it has always been about keeping costs to a minimum.
Serving replies only helps to narrow the issues and speed up any potential assessment.
The only reason for not doing so is pure bone idleness!
Well they could also be extremely confident in their file – sometimes solicitors can be very good you know
Or conversely perhaps the PODs are so poor they did not feel the need to respond
In such circumstances why should they be compelled to serve Replies? They are optional and by compelling them to serve they are reducting their profit margin on the PA scheme
@ annon
Reducing profit margin? That sits well with your duty to the Court! Aside from which, how else do you justify any PA costs let alone £1500.00 if you just read the PODs then set down?
@ Anonymous
I agree for the most part they should be done
However please see the scenarios I detailed. How does me saying No this was suitable for a Grade B as opposed to a Grade C as offered narrow the issues for the court (and this is disregarding the issue as to whether it is a point of principle)
My point is I can see some limited scenarios whereby the Replys will add nothing to the file or which the judge cannot conclude from a good narrative
Re profitability – DA costs invariably get reduced and normally the biggest aspect of that is the Replies. Therefore its better to be preparing a Bill in that time in my humble opinion
If your DA costs are time for neg’s and time for the N258 papers there really is little scope for reduction and so your profitability is higher
I’ll post this here as its most current – sorry its off topic
CPR (amendment no 7) comes in 01.10.13
it clarifies at rule 22, that cases remaining in CPR 47.15, will attract a maximum fee of £1500.00, PLUS VAT and relevant Court fee.
Now we just need to deal with the idiots saying drawing a bill is included in this :-/
Anonymous on August 15th, 2013 9:20 am – I think it is pretty clear now (or will be in Ocotober).
Now that it has been clarified, the limit is fairly unremarkable. It’s a pity the choice of words wasn’t clear from the outset…
—–
22. In rule 47.15, for paragraph (5) substitute—
“(5) In proceedings which do not go beyond provisional assessment, the maximum amount the court will award to any party as costs of the assessment (other than the costs of drafting the bill of costs) is £1,500 together with any VAT thereon and any court fees paid by that party.”.
Charles, if it is pretty clear now ( and I agree with you) then someone needs to tell the Paying Parties, including the lovely host of this blog, whom persist in arguing its inclusive
I mean, who ever heard of paying parties taking frivilous and vexation interpretations of their own??