January 2016

I previously mentioned that the conflict in decisions as to whether fixed costs apply where costs are payable on the indemnity basis, when a claimant succeeds on a Part 36 offer, was due to be resolved by the Court of Appeal in February. Kerry Underwood’s blog now reports that this case has settled. We are

The mandatory pilot scheme in the Senior Courts Costs Office for the new J-Codes based bill of costs format had been due to start in April but was then delayed until October 2016. It has now been announced that this date has also been abandoned for further consideration. Part of the impetus for this appears

Do fixed costs continue to apply if a claimant is entitled to costs on the indemnity basis? I am grateful to Gordon Exall’s Civil Litigation Brief for highlighting two conflicting decisions on this issue. This is now apparently due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in February. Something has gone seriously wrong with

I’ve uploaded an article on the conflict between the phase-by-phase/item-by-item approach of costs budgeting/detailed assessment and the new proportionality test to the Costs Law Articles Archive, first published in the Solicitors Journal.

I am always rather mystified when I receive Replies that contain a preamble along the following lines: “Many of the Defendant’s points of dispute do not comply with the costs practice direction as they do not state concisely (or at all in some cases) the nature and grounds of the dispute. The Defendant has chosen,

Interest on costs usually runs from the date of the order for costs. CPR 47.7 provides that detailed assessment proceedings should be commenced within 3 months of the final order/judgment. CPR 47.8 provides that where a receiving party fails to commence detailed assessment proceedings within the period specified, the paying party may apply for an