At the heart of the successful appeal in May v Wavell Group was the appeal judge’s view that, apparently, the issue of proportionality is something readily discoverable once all the relevant factors have been taken into account. He held: “the construction of the rules relating to the definition of proportionality and their application do not […]
Proportionality test – providing specific reasoning Read More »
I just had my first hearing dealing with an application to strike out Points of Dispute and have the Bill assessed as drawn due to an alleged failure to comply with PD 47 para.8.3: “The paying party must state in an open letter accompanying the points of dispute what sum, if any, that party offers
“Mandatory” offers in detailed assessment proceedings Read More »
The Association of Costs Lawyers often used to have an examination question along the lines of: “There is no point in a receiving party making an offer to settle in detailed assessment proceedings. Discuss.” The reasoning behind the question is that receiving parties currently have a presumption in their favour that they will be awarded
Part 36 offers and detailed assesment proceedings Read More »
One of the inherent difficulties when advising defendants in relation to cost disputes is the difficult question of determining which points are worth taking and which ones are not. One costs judge’s technical dispute wholly lacking in merit is another costs judges perfectly proper challenge that will meet with success. For example, where there has
Predicting the unpredictable in costs disputes Read More »
This year’s White Paper Conference Company costs conference on Costs, Funding, CFAs and Jackson was such a success it was repeated twice and sold out on both occasions almost immediately. (That’s what you get when you promote a costs event via the Legal Costs Blog.) One of the speakers, Michael Kain from costs firm Kain
Detailed assessments after costs budgeting? Read More »
One of the controversial forthcoming changes to the CPR concerning detailed assessment proceedings is to scrap the current CPR 47.18 and 47.19, concerning liability for detailed assessment costs, and substitute these with: “47.18 (1) The general rules about costs contained in Parts 36, 43 and 44 apply to the costs of detailed assessment proceedings, as
Detailed assessment and rights of audience Read More »
Forthcoming change to CPR 47.14: “(8) If an assessment is carried out at more than one hearing, then for the purposes of rule 52.4 time for appealing shall not start to run until the conclusion of the final hearing, unless the court orders otherwise.” Sensible. It currently runs from the date of the judgment on
Time to appeal extended Read More »
Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC writing in the New Law Journal: “In short, what the elaborate structure of assessment comes down to, is not to keep costs down to a reasonable level, but to determine a market rate. In reality, it does not even do that. At best, it is an imperfect means of limiting dishonest
Detailed assessment Read More »
One of the proposed changes to the provisional assessment pilot is: “When lodging documents for PA the parties should file (a) any open offer and (b) in a sealed envelope any offer under Part 36”. Now, filing sealed offers is very sensible and answers the problem I raised last year when the pilot was first
Open offers in provisional assessments Read More »
I note that among the forthcoming changes to the Costs Practice Direction will be the deletion of the current CPD 39.2: “Where there is a dispute about the insurance premium in a staged policy (which has the same meaning as in paragraph 19.4(3A)) it will normally be sufficient for the receiving party to set out
Rules Committee in no doubt Read More »
