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 “Costs law – the judges speak”
Finally! Some clarity!
The Adrian Durham of the costs world strikes again.
Presumably the judge’s were full of praise for the standard and usefulness of all sets of Points of Dispute?
good to see common sense prevails – unless there is prejudice it points scoring
ask for an extension and grant it if its a reasonble request
And Master Leonard has no problem in granting extensions for late service.
Adrian Durham of costs! This made me laugh.
Clear as mud really.
Anyone had any problems with points of dispute that differ slightly from the proforma version – i.e. not having a ‘Costs Officer’s decision’ section in cases that would not be subject to provisional assessment’ ?
CoA should limit there guidance on this issue going forward, sooner or later one judge will say or do something which will start costs wars part 3. the extension provisions are helpful and sufficient, perhaps more claimants will negotiate now or be more willing to grant extensions, this is something most defendants ask for and most claimants reject in the old world.
Look at the rules and how much they lean towards receiving parties, all of these sanctions for not filing points in dispute but the claimant can choose whether he wants to bother to respond(absurd).
A parties conduct in costs proceedings should be the overriding factor.
Already I am sick to the back teeth of people talking about compliance when minor ommissions occur, lawyers are not scientists we get things wrong, look at the Brett decision (handbags). Would say to all practioners use your right to appeal responsibly otherwise the CoA will get grow tired of costs appeals quickly.
Comply or die is the way forward, dont water the rules down for big hitting claimant lawyers or external costs agents who want to bring fourth the next costs wars to stay relevant or in full time work!
R.I.P Joe Locke, I met him a couple of times, really nice man.