Legal Cost Specialists
The recent decision of Costs Judge James in Kapoor v Johal, Johal & Johal [2024] EWHC 2853 (SCCO) is a relatively rare example of the Court not only exercising its powers under CPR 44.11, but this resulting in a complete disallowance of all costs claimed within the Bill of Costs. The £258,583.78 Bill was assessed […]
£258,583.78 Bill of Costs assessed at £0 for misconduct Read More »
Interesting costs webinar from Gatehouse Chambers’ Costs and Litigation Funding Team examining the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in light of the recent decision in Glaser v Atay [2024] EWCA Civ 1111. That case determined that the Direct Access barristers’ terms did not comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that the contract was unenforceable. The barristers were not
Retainer challenges under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Read More »
In Oakwood Solicitors Ltd v Menzies [2024] UKSC 34 the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision. In essence, it is not sufficient to have a retainer that allows for costs to be deducted from damages and for a final bill to be sent to the client at the conclusion of the case.
Oakwood Solicitors Ltd v Menzies Read More »
This blog has looked many times at the drafting error in The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2023 concerning the transitional provisions and Fixed Recoverable Costs. These state that the new rules “only apply to a claim where proceedings are issued on or after 1st October 2023”. This is despite the fact they are clearly
Transitional provisions for Fixed Recoverable Costs (again) Read More »
The Practice Direction on Administrative Court Bundle Guidance explains how PDF bundles should be numbered: “All bundles must be paginated in ascending order from start to finish. The first page of the PDF will be numbered “1”, and so on. (Any original page numbers of documents within the bundle are to be ignored.) Index pages
Numbering PDF page numbers for electronic court bundles Read More »
“In general, there is an expectation that the first draft of a witness statement can be undertaken by lower grade fee earners including Grade C solicitors and legal executives (and those with similar experience). This is particularly so since witness statements should, in general, be drafted in the witness’ own words. Whether and the extent
Appropriate grade of fee earner to draft witness statement Read More »
“Joint Settlement Meetings (JSM) It is not generally an objection to an allowance being made for a JSM that one or other party thinks such a meeting is unlikely to be required (unless it is clear that one will not be required or appropriate). It can be budgeted for on the assumption that one will
Budgeting for costs of JSM Read More »
“Level of fee earner. Issues might arise as to the seniority of the fee earner attending trial if a solicitor’s attendance is reasonably required. But even in high value cases it may not be reasonable for a senior solicitor to attend throughout a trial.” – from Costs Judge Simon Brown’s Note on costs budgeting in
Appropriate grade of fee earner to attend trial Read More »
“In general in the KB a PTR is not considered necessary and often costs of 2/3 hours are allowed to deal with issues relating to listing and associated matters together with a listing fee where appropriate.” – from Costs Judge Simon Brown’s Note on costs budgeting in the King’s Bench involving high value personal injury
Budgeting for PTR in King’s Bench Read More »
“Consultations/conference with experts In some, if not many, cases these can be conducted by videolink without the need for experts to incur travel expenses or to spend time travelling. Whether allowance should be made for attendance of an expert in person is however case sensitive. It is recognised that where, for instance, liability is in
Do experts need to attend conferences in person? Read More »