Legal Cost Specialists
The recent decision of His Honour Judge Matthews, sitting as a High Court judge, in EJW Builders Ltd & Anor v Marshall & Ors (Re Costs) [2025] EWHC 2898 (Ch) questioned whether Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters Ltd/Truscott v Truscott [1997] EWCA Civ 2285 would be decided the same today. The Truscott decision is summarised in the […]
Is Wraith still relevant when considering hourly rates? Read More »
With the latest news being that CILEX has applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), it is worth continuing to explore the arguments that might be advanced as to why Mazur was wrong. One of the first to question
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Wrongly decided? – Part 3 Read More »
One of the arguments advanced as to why Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) may have been wrongly decided comes from Jackson Yamba, a registered foreign lawyer at Halifax firm SAZ Solicitors, via LinkedIn: “Why Mazur is Wrong on Exempt Persons under the Legal Services Act 2007 Mazur’s interpretation of
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Wrongly decided? – Part 2 Read More »
The Association of Costs Lawyers’ London Annual Costs Conference was held last Friday. One of the breakout sessions was “An Audience with Senior Costs Judge Rowley”. As entertainment goes, it was better than “An Audience with Jeremy Beadle” but not as good as “An Audience with Victoria Wood”. Each to their own. One of the
Does Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting apply to detailed assessment? Read More »
One of the apparent anomalies to emerge from Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) is the fact that Chartered Legal Executives with over 8 years’ experience are treated as Grade A fee earners for the purposes of the Guideline Hourly Rates despite the fact that many of them are
Do Guideline Hourly Rates need to be revisited for Chartered Legal Executives? Read More »
The recent guidance on Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) from the Law Society states, in relation to those authorised to conduct litigation: “Both the firm and the individual carrying on the activity must be authorised” This is clearly not intended to refer only to solicitors’ firms as the same
Do Costs Lawyers need to work for an authorised firm? Read More »
Last year I represented the paying partying in a detailed assessment where CPR 44.11 misconduct allegations were raised. The £258,583.78 claim for costs was assessed at £nil and the receiving party’s solicitor referred to the SRA (Kapoor v Johal, Johal & Johal [2024] EWHC 2853 (SCCO)). The case received significant coverage in the legal press. Not long
Bill of Costs reduced by 75% because of CPR 44.11 misconduct Read More »
The first decision of a judge reducing costs in light of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has just been reported. Legal Futures has written up last week’s Claims Futures conference where one of the speakers was District Judge Richard Lumb, who sits at Oxford Combined Court as a regional
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – first example of costs being disallowed Read More »
There have been a number of commentators suggesting that Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) was wrongly decided. It is fair to say that much of this has been wishful thinking and/or based on misconceived arguments. However, there have also been a number of other arguments advanced that are much
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Wrongly decided? – Part 1 Read More »
The new Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025 has just been published. However, the Foreword is dated 18 August 2025 and the Guide was therefore presumably written some time before that. This is unfortunate. If it had been drafted post-Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), a little more care might
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – SCCO Guide gets in wrong Read More »