Author name: Simon Gibbs

The pre-1/4/13 Costs Practice Direction dealing with the contents of Points of Dispute used to state at CPD 35.3(3) they must: “where practicable suggest a figure to be allowed for each item in respect of which a reduction is sought” This requirement has been dropped from the new Practice Direction to Part 47. I wonder […]

In what must have been the most widely expected change to the costs rules, the 66th update to the CPR amends the section relating to the maximum costs allowable for matters that proceed to provisional assessment. The current wording of CPR 47.15(5) says: “The court will not award more than £1,500 to any party in

I recently received an Order for costs from Cardiff County Court in costs only proceedings with, what appears to be, standard directions including: “The Claimant do within 21 days of service of the points of dispute, file and serve upon the Defendant replies to the points of dispute.” In so far as replies are optional,

A US lawyer who was paid in oral sex has been suspended for a year. The attorney’s client had been arrested and charged with drink driving. When she informed him she couldn’t afford his $1,000 fee estimate, he proposed an alternative fellatio-based fee arrangement. Unforeseen complications arose and he was therefore compelled to charge her

I note the back of the letterhead for QualitySolicitors in 2011 stated: “QualitySolicitors are different. We promise: … First Consultation Free”. By 2013 this had change to: “QualitySolicitors are different. We promise: … First free advice”. I have no idea what “First free advice” means but rather suspect their website reflects the intention: “Free First

I’ve just received a bill of costs that states: “This Bill has been drawn in multiple parts so as to differentiate between the work done pre and post 1st April 2013 on the basis that the former Lownds proportionality test applies to the pre 1st April 2013 work”. Half correct. It also applies to the

As an increasing number of readers of the Legal Costs Blog have observed, posts on virtually any subject quickly have the Comments section descend into a tat-for-tat debate about Costs Lawyers v Law Costs Draftsmen. Although this was certainly not a debate I started, I have to concede I have added fuel to the fire

News article from The Telegraph: “Lessons in spelling ‘have no place in 21st century schools’. Schools should stop providing lessons in spelling and grammar because children can correct linguistic errors on their mobile phones, according to a leading academic.” In that case, I wish rather more readers of the Legal Costs Blog posted their comments

A reader of the Legal Costs Blog recently asked the question whether an open offer pursuant to PD 47 paragraph 8.3 can be made with a time limit for acceptance. The wording of the PD simply says: “The paying party must state in an open letter accompanying the points of dispute what sum, if any,