The Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals have announced changes to how certain Judges are addressed in court. From now on, the Judges listed below should be addressed in court or tribunal hearings as ‘Judge’: Masters Upper Tribunal Judges Judges of the Employment Appeal Tribunal District Judges District Judges (Magistrates Courts) First-Tier Tribunal […]
New terminology for costs judges Read More »
Inter partes bills of costs that do not exceed £75,000 are normally subject to provisional assessment. Where a case does not go beyond provisional assessment, the maximum amount the court can award either party in respect of the costs of assessment is £1,500, plus VAT, plus the court fee. Is not uncommon for a bill
Provisional assessment and £75,000 figure Read More »
Practice Directions do not have the same status as the Civil Procedure Rules themselves. Sometimes the Practice Directions are misleading. Sometimes they are simply wrong (eg KU (A Child) v LCC [2005] EWCA Civ 475). One example of the Practice Directions being misleading/wrong is in relation to the issue of setting aside a Default Costs
Good reason to set aside Default Costs Certificate Read More »
During the rough-and-tumble of a typical detailed assessment hearing, where the judge will be making multiple ex tempore decisions, it is routine to hear criticisms of the amount of time claimed by the receiving party and/or criticisms of certain items that have been included within a bill of costs. It is much less usual to
Recovering shortfall in costs from client’s damages Read More »
Given the Court of Appeal recently adjourned the case of CAM Legal v Belsner, we will have to wait some time for guidance from the higher courts on the issue of informed consent when deductions are made from damages in personal injury cases. However, that has not stopped important developments elsewhere on the same issue
Seeking costs from client in excess of approved budget – ST v ZY Read More »
Significant costs, and much valuable court time, is taken up re-arguing identical points of principle in costs litigation due to the absence of a binding authority. So it is with the issue of the recoverability of court fees. An example is where a claimant pays court fees and subsequently seeks to recover those from the
A (minority) of electronic Bills of Costs that I see follow the Association of Costs Lawyers’ template e-bill. This Bill enables Points of Dispute to be incorporated directly into the electronic spreadsheet. For certain Bills, there may be advantages to incorporating Points of Dispute into the Bill, but I usually prepare Points of Dispute as
Points of Dispute and electronic Bills of Costs Read More »
The recent decision of Louis Dreyfus Company Suisse S.A. v International Bank of St. Petersburg (Joint-Stock Company) [2021] EWHC 1039 (Comm) contains a short passage dealing with the approach on detailed assessment where costs are to be paid on the indemnity basis. The decision was reported in Costs Law Reports. (Copies of their latest reported
Assessing costs on the indemnity basis Read More »
The costs subcommittee of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) is apparently due to consider whether it should be possible to make Part 36 offers in relation to the costs of detailed assessment. This follows the recent decision of Master Leonard in Best v Luton & Dunstable Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC B2 (Costs)
As far back as 2005, Lord Justice Brooke observed in Black v Pastouna & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1389 that: “It is incumbent on those advising parties appearing before this, or any, court to take all the steps they can in accordance with CPR Rules 1.1 and 1.3 to reduce the cost of the proceedings.
Cost of travelling to conferences Read More »
