Legal Cost Specialists

Splitting bills of costs

By on Nov 11, 2013 | 7 comments

Regional Costs Judge Marshall Phillips writing in the Solicitors Journal:

“In cases issued on or after 1 April 2013, the receiving party should differentiate between work done before and after that date, proving a total for work done before and a total for work done after. The court will be applying a different proportionality test for work done during these two periods”.

For many cases, this is no doubt a sensible suggestion, but it is not required by the rules.

Secondly, so far as the courts “applying a differently proportionality test for work done during these two periods”, not necessarily. See: proportionality transitional provisions.

    7 Comments

  1. shocking to see that even a RCJ doesn’t get it right

    Anonymous

    11th November 2013

  2. Not really that shocking that the RCJ got it wrong.

    Anon

    11th November 2013

  3. 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?

    A nonny mouse

    11th November 2013

  4. 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

    abcde

    11th November 2013

  5. I am seeing Bills that are split when they do not need to be and not split when they should be.

    john allen

    11th November 2013

  6. 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.

    A nonny mouse

    12th November 2013

  7. 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.

    'king costs

    12th November 2013

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.