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 “Costs draftsmen basics”
When did it become standard practice to disclose a client care letter to the other side ? What planet are the SCCO on ?
Standard practice for the client care letter to be disclosed? This is not something I’ve come across.
The CFA – fine – nothing controversial there…
Oops, something I’ve *not* come across.
I’m glad I’m not the only person to have a ‘drop my bacon sandwich’ moment…
I agree with the other two. Never disclosed a client care letter or had one disclosed to me. I am only speaking from memory now but I think Hollins v Russell says no need to disclose client care letter but should disclose CFA, if there is one.
You say “should disclose” a CFA but it has to be in context
A “please disclose your CFA” request is declined. Bailey has to apply. There has to be reason to disclose otherwise you may as well just hand over the file for inspection
CFA yes – although I find that a lot of firms still will not.
CCL – never had it disclosed to me (other than by mistake which made for an entertaining DAH).
If you are fully complient with 32.5 why is the CFA needed?
I had overlooked this anomalie when leading the guide. For a private retainer you have to raise a genuine issue to go be behind the signature on the bill (eg Ilangaratne v BMA [2005] EWHC 2096 (Ch) – seemed to have unusually high rates for a panel sol and transpired in a subsequent Judgment the rates claimed did breach the indemnity princuiple). Upon raising a genuine issue the paying party should either disclose redacted retainer document(s) or alternative evidence as to the retainer. If receiving party waits til the hearing to disclose they should be bear the costs of doing so (in my opinion).
Similar position re: CFAs confirmed in Hollins except no need to raise a genuine issue.
so glad you all never read what Bailey recommended
so glad the SCCO has some brain and sense hidden somewhere
but how you reconcile this blog post with
http://www.gwslaw.co.uk/2013/10/signature-to-bill-of-costs/??????
any chance of some consistency please??? oh no, costs …..
My understanding of what was behind Hollins was to enable the defendant to be sure the old CFA Regs had been complied with. Therefore I’m not sure there is any authority for disclose of post November 2005 CFAs.