Author name: Simon Gibbs

Back in April 2010 I wrote an article for the New Law Journal asking how the new proportionality test proposed by Lord Justice Jackson was actually meant to work. Three years later I am still waiting for an answer. A copy of the article is now available to read on the Costs Law Articles Archive […]

The old CPD 35.6 provided: “(1) This paragraph applies in cases in which Points of Dispute are capable of being copied onto a computer disk. (2) If, within 14 days of the receipt of the Points of Dispute, the receiving party requests a disk copy of them, the paying party must supply him with a

The new Practice Direction 3.1 to CPR 47.3 increases the powers of principal court officers (I believe I’m right in saying there is currently just one) from £75,000 including additional liabilities but excluding VAT to £110,000 base costs excluding VAT. By my reckoning that means once you add back in success fees, ATE premiums and

Yesterday’s post on the content of replies under the new rules generated plenty of interest in the Comments Section and I therefore thought it appropriate to elaborate on this issue. In response to the fact the new rules state replies should be limited to points of principle and concessions only one reader commented: “An item

Oh dear. I have been warning that costs practitioners did not appear to be ready for the post-Jackson reforms. I have so far received two set of Replies prepared after 1 April 2013, prepared by well known costs firms. Both contained detailed responses to the disputes raised as to hourly rates, detailed responses in relation

I note the new Model Form of Bill of Costs gives the following example in relation to hourly rates: “The claimant instructed E F & Co under a retainer which specifies the following hourly rates. Partner – £217 per hour plus VAT Assistant Solicitor – £192 per hour plus VAT Other fee earners – £118

The other day I found in my email inbox an email from a Svetlana. The subject line read: “Let’s talk more my bunny!” The contents of the email were: “Hi!!! I have decided to write to you and I think that you will write to me. Please do not hesitate and write to me. I

A reader of the Legal Costs Blog contacted me to say one of his solicitor clients had asked the following question: “If we terminate the client’s CFA today and replace it with a retrospective CFA back to the beginning of the case will the client get the benefit of QOCS?” The reader is an exceptionally

The Legal Services Board has called on parliament to set up a single regulator for the legal services sector which would absorb all eight current frontline regulators (including the Costs Lawyer Standards Board). Iain Stark, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, sensibly opposes this change and was quoted in Solicitors Journal as saying: “A

The other day I mentioned that with the introduction of the new form N258 – Request for Provisional/Detailed Assessment it appeared the old form N258 had been renumbered D258. However, as a reader pointed out: “I thought D258 was for family cases. Hence Applicant/ Petitioner/ Respondent appearing in the headings in the top right of