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.
7 thoughts on “Splitting bills of costs”
shocking to see that even a RCJ doesn’t get it right
Not really that shocking that the RCJ got it wrong.
Surely the qualification “In cases issued on or after 1 April 2013” applies to the second sentence as much as the first – in which case isn’t the RCJ correct?
surely the point is he says “should” which is correct – he doesnt say must
he misses the fact that on unissued cases the Bill should also be split if the work is pre and post
I am seeing Bills that are split when they do not need to be and not split when they should be.
abcde – by the time a judge sees it, it is an issued case (albeit by the costs only procedure) so that scenario is also (sort of) covered by what he says.
I agree, “should” refers to what is most helpful for all concerned, rather than a rules requirement.
RCJ is almost as confusing an acronym as CMC is these days.
If two different proportionality tests apply it is fairly obvious the bill needs to be split. The PD should have said this (it has done every other time such a split was necessary) and needs to be amended.
The rule is not really as complex as the earlier blog would suggest, although those permutations exist.
The old proportionality test applies to work undertaken prior to 1 April 2013 and the new test applies to work undertaken after that date, unless proceedings were issued prior to 1 April in which case the old test applies to all costs.