fixed fees

There is stiff competition as to which part of the new(ish) rules concerning Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC) have been most poorly drafted. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to find a more confusing set of provisions than those surrounding late acceptance of a defendant’s Part 36 offer. The problems stem from the way the basic rules […]

This blog has looked many times at the drafting error in The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2023 concerning the transitional provisions and Fixed Recoverable Costs. These state that the new rules “only apply to a claim where proceedings are issued on or after 1st October 2023”. This is despite the fact they are clearly

So far, since the extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC), there have probably been very few, if any, cases which have gone as far as trial. Unfortunately, once there are, we will start to see all kinds of problems arise because of yet another case of poor drafting. When the FRC rules were first introduced,

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee’s decision to refuse to admit they made a drafting error in relation to the transitional provisions concerning Fixed Recoverable Costs for non-personal injury claims is regrettable. Not only is it likely to generate unnecessary satellite litigation due to the uncertainty it has created, it is also likely to generate unnecessary

Under the new Fixed Recoverable Costs regime, there are various exceptions where the court may allow an amount greater than the specified fixed costs. In particular: The Court may consider a claim for an amount of costs which is greater than the fixed recoverable costs where there are “exceptional circumstances” (CPR 45.9(1)). CPR 45.10(1) allows

CPR 45.4 governs the costs payable to a litigant in person where it is a matter which would otherwise be subject to fixed recoverable costs (i.e. costs under Section VI, Section VII or Section VIII of Part 45). In this situation, costs will be paid according to CPR 46.5 with certain variations: Where a party

I have previously written about the discrepancy between the Fixed Recoverable Costs a claimant and a defendant may recover for the same period. This is as a consequence of a combination of CPR 45.45(1)(a)(iv), CPR 45.50(2)(b)(iv) CPR 45.6(2) and (3). A claimant’s costs are set by reference to the damages agreed/awarded. That is what CPR

Acceptance of a Part 36 offer creates a deemed order for costs. Right? Not necessarily. So far as relevant: CPR 44.9 “(1) Subject to paragraph (2), where a right to costs arises under –  … (b) rule 36.13(1) or (2) (claimant’s entitlement to costs where a Part 36 offer is accepted); … a costs order

The transitional provisions concerning the new fixed costs regime are less than straightforward to follow, not least because of the defective drafting. When struggling to follow something like this, I like to try to visualise it with, if possible, a flowchart. This is what I have attempted here. To be clear, this is what I

Are parties free to contract out of Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC) if a case would otherwise be subject to the regime? As currently drafted, it appears not. CPR 45.1(3) states: “Where— a claim is one to which Section IV, Section VI, Section VII or Section VIII of this Part applies; and the parties agree or