Author name: Simon Gibbs

Part VII of CPR 45 is headed: “VII FIXED COSTS IN THE INTERMEDIATE TRACK” CPR 45.50(1): “For as long as the case is not allocated to the multi-track, the only costs allowed in any claim which would normally be or is allocated to the intermediate track are (a) the fixed costs in Table 14 …” Table 14 […]

CPR 45.13 allows the court to penalise a party who is found to have behaved unreasonably by reducing their costs by 50% if the unreasonable party is the receiving party or increasing the other party’s costs by 50% if the unreasonable party is the paying party. The rule does not, as it might, require the

Traditionally, a party in whose favour a costs order was made could seek those costs on the indemnity basis where the other party had behaved unreasonably during the litigation. In fixed costs matters, a party could seek to escape the fixed costs regime by showing there were “’exceptional circumstances”, which would most commonly be unreasonable

An earlier post looked at the Fixed Recoverable Costs for defendants being based on the “the amount specified in the claim form, without taking into account any deduction for contributory negligence, but excluding – (i) any amount not in dispute; (ii) interest; or (iii) costs” (CPR 45.6(2) and (3)). What about where the claim form

The extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs sets the level of recoverable costs for both claimants and defendants. Where the claimant wins, the claimant’s costs are set by reference to the damages as agreed/awarded (see CPR 45.45(1)(a)(iv) and CPR 45.50(2)(b)(iv)). It is the settlement value which is determinative. The position is very different when the defendant

There is no doubt that the rules allow a court on detailed assessment to limit a party’s recoverable costs to those that would have been applicable to a particular track even if the matter settled pre-allocation. That is what CPR 46.13(3) expressly provides for: “Where the court is assessing costs on the standard basis of

One of the likely future battlegrounds arising from the extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs is the issue of what complexity band a matter should be assigned to. The natural assumption is that claimants will seek to have matters assigned to higher complexity bands (where the recoverable costs will be higher), whereas defendants will seek to

A recent post commented on problems with the drafting of the transitional provisions concerning Fixed Recoverable Costs. The latest Minutes from the Civil Procedure Rules Committee recognises this issue: “It was NOTED that a recent article had given rise to a concern in relation to the transitional provisions within the amending statutory instrument (SI) and