Legal Cost Specialists
PD 47 para.5.1 requires an electronic bill of costs for any work undertaken after 6 April 2018 where the claim is a Part 7 multi-track claim. The Practice Direction contains no sanction for failing to comply with this requirement. CPR 44.11 provides: “(1) The court may make an order under this rule where […]
Failure to serve electronic bill of costs Read More »
I had anticipated that the case of Culliford & Anor v Thorpe [2018] EWHC 2532 (Ch) would be the last word we would hear on the subject of interim payments for costs. In that case the court had to decide whether it had the power to order an interim costs payment after the original costs order
Interim costs payment following acceptance of Part 36 offer Read More »
The SCCO has published the updated Senior Courts Costs Office Guide 2018. This is the first update since 2013. It provides a helpful summary of a number of procedural points. It also provides a useful list of the current Regional Costs Judges.
Senior Courts Costs Office Guide 2018 Read More »
The decision of Mr Justice Walker in Page v RGC Restaurants Ltd [2018] EWHC 2688 (QB) provides further important guidance on the costs budgeting process and is essential reading for those involved in costs budgeting. The underlying case was subject to costs budgeting. The parties decided between themselves, without consulting the Court, that the budgets
Defective costs budgets Read More »
The Legal Costs Blog keeps being pulled back to the issue of the timing of orders for interim payments of costs between the parties.The current wording of the relevant rules is to be found at CPR 44.2(8): “Where the court orders a party to pay costs subject to detailed assessment, it will order that party
Timing of payments on account Read More »
Of the various costs building wheezes that some claimant firms engage in, having a second (or third) junior fee earner attend conferences with Counsel, to take notes, is one of the classics. When this issue arises at detailed assessment, I know at least one costs judge who confirms that, when he was a practising solicitor,
Second fee earner attending conference Read More »
The first problem with the vanity legal awards industry is that they are often ridiculously wide in the nature of the awards they seek to distribute, to the extent to which the awards are meaningless (even if they were distributed on merit). For example, Wealth & Finance INTL magazine previously awarded Gibbs Wyatt Stone ‘Most
Most Outstanding Legal Costs Litigation Firm 2018 – London Read More »
In a speech given earlier in the year, Lord Justice Jackson recognised that the profession was becoming “impatient” for guidance on the proportionality test from the Court of Appeal. He concluded: “The remedy lies in their own hands. The Court of Appeal can only decide the cases which come before it.” In May v Wavell Group
Court of Appeal guidance on proportionality Read More »
Hailsham Chambers has reported on the Court of Appeal decision in the appeal of Hislop v Perde [2018] EWCA Civ 1726. This concerns the correct approach where a defendant accepts a claimant’s Part 36 offer after expiry of the 21 day period. Many claimants have argued that the claimant should be entitled to recover indemnity
Late acceptance by defendant of Part 36 offer Read More »
The Senior Costs Judge Master Gordon-Saker prefaced his recent decision on proportionality, in Various Claimants (In Wave 1 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation) v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC B13 (Costs), with the warning: “this judgment should not be taken as any attempt at providing guidance. I say that because I know that anything said about
Additional work and proportionality Read More »